History of Free Thought in Reference to The Christian Religion

by Adam Storey Farrar

Footnotes

[1.]Pref. pp. [v.-ix].[2.]Id. pp. [x], [xi].[3.]Id. pp. [xii], [xiii].[4.]Id. p. [xiv].[5.][Lect. I].: and [Lect. VIII.] p. [340] seq.[6.]E.g., in the French expression la libre pensée.[7.]In Note, p. [413].[8.]In 1713.[9.]Many of the modern French protestant critics so employ it; e.g. A. Reville, Rev. des Deux Mondes, Parker, Oct. 1861.[10.]Cfr. pp. [9] and [99].[11.]Cfr. p. [12], and Notes [4], [5], and [6], at the end of this volume.[12.]Boyle Lectures (1802-4). See note, p. [345].[13.]Bacon's Nov. Org. lib. i. Aph. 104.[14.]Cfr. pp. [14-20].[15.]Pp. [32-34]. Pp. [22], [24], [25].[16.]Pp. [24-31].[17.]Cfr. p. [346].[18.]See especially [Lect. VIII.] p. [357] seq.[19.]Some valuable remarks on the proper balance of the mind in study are contained in a sermon, The Nemesis of Excess, recently preached at Oxford, by Bp. Jackson.[20.]pp. [35-37].[21.]Cfr. pp. [31] note, [342]; and Note [9]. pp. [396-8].[22.]The Natural History of Infidelity and Superstition in Contrast with Christian Faith.[23.]A work partly on the history of unbelief, Scepticism a Retrogressive Move in Theology and Philosophy, has also been lately written (1861) by the accomplished lord Lindsay. Great learning is shown in it. Though written with a special controversial purpose, and though the facts accordingly are briefly stated, without literary references, it contains a useful summary and suggestive reflections.[24.]In a literary point of view it is incorrect, in one chapter, if the author understands Mr. Robins rightly, where he seems to classify together, under the same head of Pantheism, the atheism of the French school of the Encyclopædists in the last century and that of the German philosophers of the present. The two indeed agree in denying or ignoring the existence of a personal God; but in tone, premises, and metaphysical relations, they differ diametrically. (Since this note was written, the sad intelligence of Mr. Robins's death has appeared.)[25.]Christliche Kirchengeschichte, &c. 45 vols. 1768-1812. The writer of these lectures has taken occasion elsewhere (p. [466].) to deplore the want of any complete history of the English church. He may here add also the want of a history in English of European Christianity since the Reformation.[26.]It may offer an explanation of subsequent references to some church historians, to name the classification given by Schaff (Bibliotheca Sacra, 1850). After treating of the ancient and mediæval histories, and making the obvious subdivision of the modern into Romish and Protestant, and subdividing these again according to their nations, he arranges the Protestant historians of Germany chronologically under five classes: (1) the Polemico-orthodox, such as the Magdeburg centuriators; (2) the Pietistic,—Arnold and Weismann; (3) the Pragmatico-super-natural,—Mosheim, Walch, Planck, Schröckh; (4) the Rationalist,—Semler, Henke, Gieseler (in reference to which latter he is perhaps hardly fair); (5) the Scientific, viz. (α) of the Schleiermacher school,—Neander; (β) of the Hegelian, unchurchlike and heterodox,—Baur; (γ) of the Hegelian, churchlike and orthodox,—Dorner. Concerning older church historians, see the late Rev. J. G. Dowling's excellent work, Introduction to the Critical Study of Ecclesiastical History, 1838; and, on the most modern German church historians, see North British Review, Nov. 1858.[27.]Lect. [III]. pp. [100-103].[28.]Geschichte des Englischen Deismus. 1841.[29.]J. Leland's View of the Deistical Writers, 1754. An edition published in 1837 contains an account of the subsequent history of Deism by Cyrus R. Edmonds. It is edited by Dr. W. L. Brown.[30.]Lecture [II.][31.]An older work, in some respects similar to Pressensé's, is Tzchirner's Geschichte der Apologetik, 1805.[32.]Lecture [III.][33.]See p. [82], note.[34.]P. [76], note.[35.]Lecture [IV.][36.]The able French critic C. Remusat has bestowed attention on some of the English deists. A paper on Shaftesbury has appeared since Lecture IV. was printed, in the Revue des Deux Mondes, Nov. 1862.[37.]In Lecture [V.][38.]Edited by Vater.[39.]See p. [177], note.[40.]See p. [164], note.[41.]Lectures [VI.] and [VII.][42.]Lecture [VI.] p. [213].[43.]Some of these works were subsequent to the discussion caused abroad by the sermons of Mr. Rose, described below.[44.]Afterwards Principal of the King's College, London.[45.]Historical Inquiry into the Probable Causes of the Rationalist Character lately predominant in the Theology of Germany.[46.]1829.[47.]Historical Inquiry, &c. part ii. 1830.[48.]P. [241]. [49.]Dr. S. Lee, of Cambridge, also appended a dissertation on some points of German Rationalism to his Six Sermons on Prophecy, 1830.[50.]In the Appendix to the second edition of the State of Protestantism in Germany, 1829.[51.]A brief sketch of Tholuck's views it given in the Foreign Quarterly Review, vol. 25.[52.]Der Deutsche Protestantismus, seine Vergangenheit and seine heutigen Lebensfragen in zusammenhang der gesammten rationalentwickelung beleuchlet von einem Deutschen. A very instructive article was written in the British Quarterly Review, No. 26, May 1851, founded chiefly on this work.[53.]Kahnis, Internal History of German Protestantism (E. T.), p. 169, note.[54.]An English clergyman, Mr. E. H. Dewar, wrote a small work in 1844, on German Protestantism; based chiefly on Amand Saintes, but in tone like that of Mr. Rose. It was considered very unfair, and was answered by Neander in the Jahrbücher fur Wissenschaftliche Kritik, October 1844; and when Mr. Dewar replied, was again answered by him in Antwortschreiben, 1845. It may be proper to name here, that Mr. B. Hawkins's work, Germany, Spirit of her History, &c. 1838, contains miscellaneous information on many points of German life, which illustrate this portion of the history.[55.]P. [279]. Neander has also written a work, Geschichte des Verflossenen halb-Jahrhunderts. (Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1850.)[56.]He belongs to a new form of the historico-critical school; See Note [41], p. [438]; but writes without prejudice. An article elsewhere referred to (p. [7]) in the Westminster Review, may convey an idea of the facts of Schwarz's work; but it expresses a more definite tendency and opinions than his work.[57.]Lect. [VII.] p. [289] seq.[58.]P. [290], note.[59.]Id.[60.]Lect. [VIII.][61.]As the relation of the present condition of religions belief in England to forms of philosophy may not have been made perfectly clear even by the remarks in Lect. [VIII.] p. [330] seq., and Note [9] (p. [396]), it may be well here to state the sequence intended, even at the risk of repetition. The father of the modern philosophy is Kant. He first gave the impulse to resolve truth, which was supposed to be objective, into subjective forms of thought. Hence, in succeeding systems of philosophy, the idea was thought to be of more importance than the facts; and an à priori tendency was created. But in the two philosophers, Schelling and Hegel, this developed in different modes. Both sought to approach facts through ideas; to both the ideal world was the real; but with the former, truth was absolute, with the latter, relative. In the former case the mind was thrown in upon itself, and had a secure ground of truth in the eternal truths of the reason; in the latter it was thrown (ultimately, though not immediately) outward, and taught to trace the transition of the ideas in the world, the growth of truth in history. Hence in theology, while the tendency of both was to find an appeal for truth independent of revelation, the one produced an intuitional religion, the other, proximately, an ideal, but ultimately generates scepticism; for the one clings to the eternal ideas in the mind, the other views the fleeting, changing aspects of truth in the world. The spirit of the former is seen in Carlyle, Coleridge, and Cousin; the spirit of the latter in Renan and Scherer, and is beginning to appear in the younger writers of the English periodical literature. Hence in English theology we have two broadly marked divisions; one doctrinal, and the other literary; the former of which subdivides into the two just named.[62.]Many references to them are given in Smith's (American) Translation of Hagenbach's Hist. of Doctr. 1862.[63.]In Lect. [I]. p. [16] (last par.), [35], [36]; In Lect. [II]. p. [66] (last par.); in Lect. [III.] p. [80] (last half), [81] (first half), [92], [97]; [98] (last par.), [99]; [102], [104], [105], [108], [111] (part): in Lect. [IV.] p. [120], [122], [124] (part), [141], [143], [145-147]; [148]: in Lect. [V.] p. [181], [182]; [184]; [196-203]; in Lect. [VI.] p. [210], [237]; [250-259] (nearly all): in Lect. [VII.] p. [281] (part); [291-301]: in Lect. [VIII.] p. [307] (part); [310-339] (for which a brief analysis was substituted); p. [344]; [355], [369] (part).[64.]His thanks are especially due to Mr. Macray, the Librarian of the Taylor Institution, for his kindness in the last respect.[65.]Pp. [38], [378].[66.]The attitude of the mind towards the national mythology in successive ages of Greek history has been treated by Grote, History of Greece, vol I. ch. 16.[67.]See Quinet's Œuvres, t. i. c. 5, and especially § 4. On the doubts expressed in the books of Job and Ecclesiastes respectively, see the article Job by Hengstenberg in Kitto's Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, (reprinted in a volume of Hengstenberg's miscellaneous works), and the article Ecclesiastes by Mr. Plumptre in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. For the free-thinking inquiry into the two books, see the article on Job in the Westminster Review, October 1853, founded mainly on Hirzel; and that on Ecclesiastes in the National Review, No. 27, for January 1862, founded chiefly on Hitzig. E. Renan, in his work on Job, and others, have studied the doubts expressed in it as an internal evidence for its date. Very full information in reference to both books may be found in Dr. S. Davidson's Introd. to the Old Testament (1862), vol. ii. p. 174 seq., 352 seq. It is deeply interesting to observe, not merely that the difficulties concerning Providence felt by Job refer to the very subjects which painfully perplex the modern mind, but also that the friends of Job exhibit the instinctive tendency which is observed in modern times to denounce his doubt as sin, not less than to attribute his trials to evil as the direct cause. These two books of Scripture, together with the seventy-third Psalm, have an increasing religious importance as the world grows older. “The things written aforetime were written for our learning.”[68.]Attention, for example, should be directed to the efforts of the mind in emancipating itself (1) from particular forms of political government, or social arrangements, or artificial laws, in the struggle against the feudal system, and in the development of political liberty in modern times, or (2) from traditional systems of scientific teaching, as the Ptolemaic theory of astronomy, or the Cartesian of vortices. The absence too of such attempts in the stagnation of Eastern life is an instructive negative instance for study.[69.]It is proper to express my obligations for a few hints in this part of the lecture to an able historic sketch of modern German thought, based on the Geschichte der neuesten Theologie of C. Schwartz, in the Westminster Review, April 1857 (especially p. 333), The enumeration of the epochs which follows nevertheless occurred to me for the most part independently of those suggestions, and had been previously expressed in public. A classification of a different kind will be found in Reimannus Historia Atheismi, 1725, p. 315.[70.]The author (supposed to be Hundeshagen) of Der Deutsche Protestantismus thus expresses himself (§ 6.): “In the history of the world there are four successive periods in which open unbelief and unconcealed enmity to Christianity made the tour in some degree among the chief nations of Europe. Italy made the beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth century; England and France followed in the seventeenth and eighteenth; the series closed in Germany in the nineteenth.” The first of the four crises in our text occurred in the ancient world; the second is mediæval; the third, at the moment of transition into the modern history, is the Italian crisis of the quotation just cited; the three others therein named make up the fourth in our enumeration.[71.]On the office of language, and the changes to which it is liable, consult the chapter on the “Natural History of the variations in the meaning of terms,” in J. S. Mill's Logic (vol. ii. b. 4. ch. 5.). An explanation of many of the terms which occur in the history of doubt, viz., Deism, Rationalism, &c. will be found in Note [21.] at the end of these Lectures.[72.]“Empirical,” as in Lessing and Paulus; “Spiritual,” as in the later schools. See Lect. [VI.] and [VII.][73.]A brief view of the history of the Christian evidences will be found in Note [49] appended to these Lectures.[74.]Viz. toward the close of Lect. [VIII.][75.]The moral causes of unbelief have been frequently discussed, but the intellectual rarely. Van Mildert has collected, in his Boyle Lectures (note to Lect. XXIV.), references to many valuable authors where the moral sins of pride and impiety are discussed; and J. A. Fabricius (Delect. Argument. 1725.) has devoted a chapter to the literature of the subject (c. 36. p. 653.) Dr. Ogilvie wrote in 1783 a separate work on the causes of the recent unbelief; but the causes alleged by him, though well treated in the details, are superficial. A satisfactory discussion of this and cognate topics connected with unbelief is given in a popular but instructive book, Infidelity, its aspects, causes, and agencies, a Prize Essay (1853) of the Evangelical Alliance, by the Rev. T. Pearson, Eyemouth, N. B.[76.]Compare some remarks on this point in Whately's Rhetoric (part 2. ch. I. § 2.)[77.]Proof being of two kinds, viz. antecedent probability, εἰκός, (Arist. Rhet. i. 2. § 15) which shows the cause; and evidence, σημεῖον, which shows the fact; it is clear that the latter, if of the positive kind, τεκμήριον, is demonstrative; but if merely of the probable kind, or of the nature of circumstantial evidence, ἀνώνυμον σημεῖον, requires the antecedent probability in addition for the purpose of effecting conviction. Otherwise the evidence may seem to be an accidental concatenation of circumstances, unless explained by the antecedent probability that existed for the occurrence of the main fact which the accumulation of circumstances is adduced to attest.[78.]See below, the commencement of Lect. [V.]; and on the influence of social disaffection in causing modern unbelief, see Pearson's Infidelity, part 2. ch. 3. p. 373 seq.[79.]Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837), a native of the trans-Apennine Roman states. His works were published (1845-49), consisting of philological pieces, poems, papers on philosophy, and letters. The Italians consider him to have been a prodigy in philological power that might have rivalled Niebuhr. As a poet he was one of the finest of his country in the present century. His letters are very classical in expression, and have been said to rival the correspondence of the best ages of Italy. His fine mind was darkened with the deepest shades of doubt. Shelley is the nearest English representative. A masterly sketch of his mental and literary character was given in the Quarterly Review (No. 172. March 1850), generally supposed to be from the pen of an English statesman well known for his knowledge of the Italian literature and his sympathy with constitutional government.[80.]Carlo Bini (1806-1842), a native of Tuscany of less note, who belonged to the Republican party in politics, and like Leopardi burned with an unquenchable love of la patria. A monument with an inscription by his friend Mazzini has been recently erected over his grave at Livorno. The tender pathos shown in his poetry has been compared to that of Jean Paul. One of his poems, L'Anniversario della Nascita 1833, expressive of deep and afflicting scepticism and life-weariness, will be found in the Collection of Italian Poetry edited by Arrivabene (1 vol. 12mo. 1855.)[81.]Shelley's mental character is discussed near the close of Lect. [V].[82.]Heinrich Heine (1799-1856), a poet who betook himself to Paris, about 1830, in disgust with the political state of Germany. His poetry was chiefly subsequent to this event. He had a mixture of German imagination with French esprit. In tone he has been compared to Byron. Vapéreau (Diction. des Contemp.) compares his wit to that of Swift or Rabelais. His collected works have been published at Philadelphia; and his poems were translated into English by E. A. Bowring, 1861. In later life Heine laid aside the extreme unbelief of his earlier years. An article respecting him appeared in the Westminster Review (Jan. 1856.)[83.]A brief statement of the difficulties raised on this point is given by Professor Baden Powell in the article Deluge in Kitto's Cyclopædia (first edition).[84.]These discrepancies formed part of the subject of an early work of De Wette (ueber die glaubwuerdigkeit der buccher der Chronik 1806), and are noticed in his Einleitung ins Alt. Test. (See the chapters which refer to these books); also in Dr. S. Davidson's Introduction to the Old Testament 1862, vol. ii. Chronicles § 6 and 8. Mr. F. Newman, in his work, The Hebrew Monarchy, has made great use of these difficulties for destructive criticism. Movers (Untersuchungen ueber die Chronik 1834), and C. F. Keil (Apologetischer Versuch ueber die Chronik 1833), endeavour to remove them. Also see the translation of the Commentary of Keil and Bertheau on Kings and Chronicles, the former of the two being based on the work of the same author previously named.[85.]J. A. Bengel (1689-1752), author of the Gnomon of the New Testament (translated, with Life prefixed to vol. iv.) Cfr. also the article by Hartmann in Herzog's Real. Encyclopædie and Burt's Life of him (translated 1837.) The labour of his life, to fix the text of the New Testament, was prompted by the alarm which his pious mind felt at the uncertainty thrown on the sacred books, the inspiration of which he believed to extend to the words.[86.]The denial of responsibility for belief may either be a denial of all responsibility whatever, in consequence of the opinion that our characters are formed for us by circumstances, or else a denial of our responsibility for our belief, as distinct from our responsibility for the agreement of our conduct with our belief; the moral responsibility, according to this view, lying in our adherence to a standard, irrespective of the truthfulness of the standard. The former of these views is the fatalism advocated in the system called (English) Socialism (See Morell's History of Philosophy, i. 472 seq.); the latter has occasionally been imputed to teachers of the utilitarian school of Ethics, perhaps with less justice; their assertions in reference to it being intended to apply only to political and not to moral responsibility.[87.]Such an attitude of mind, for example, was presented in the seventeenth century by Huet, and in the present by De Maistre. On the former, see Bartholmess' Le Scepticisme Theologique (1852); for reference to sources for the study of the latter, see Lect. [VII]. Consult Morell's History of Philosophy (vol. ii. ch. 6. § 2) for the history of this kind of philosophical scepticism.[88.]Psalm lxxiii. 15-17.[89.]See pp. [7], [12].[90.]See pp. [8-12].[91.]The names “lower” and “higher” for the two respective branches into which literary criticism is divisible, are commonly used in all modern German works of criticism.[92.]See previous footnote.[93.]The work which will most clearly explain my purpose in the following history is Mr. J. D. Morell's Historical and Critical View of the Speculative Philosophy of Europe in the nineteenth century. (1847.) It exhibits the influence of metaphysical philosophy on various branches of knowledge. (See sect 1 and 5 of the introduction to vol. i., and in vol. ii. ch. 9.) Also in his Lectures on the Philosophical Tendencies of the Age (1848), he treats the same subject with direct reference to religion. Compare also on the same points Cousin's Histoire de la Philosophie du 8e siècle, vol. ii. leçon 30; Pearson on Infidelity, part ii. ch. 2. p. 340 seq.[94.]Tennyson's In Memoriam, § 94.[95.]An instructive comparison of Milton, Cowper, and Wordsworth, which will further illustrate this subject, may be found in Macmillan's Magazine for Jan. 1862.[96.]See p. [21].[97.]The cause is, that whatever difficulties may be presented by it are the statements of rival teaching opposed to the Christian; conclusions, not premises; whereas those which arise from the psychological branch are rival premises; not difference of belief merely, but causes of such difference. Therefore the difficulties suggested by Ontology belong to those described above in p. [21], [22]. Many illustrations of this branch may be found in Bartholmess' Hist. Crit. des Doctrines Religieuses de la Philosophie Moderne, 1855.[98.]The classification of faculties here intended, with their respective functions, will be illustrated by referring to Morell's Hist. of Phil., vol. ii. p. 338; and his Philosophy of Religion, ch. 1. and 2. The altered scheme given in his subsequent works on Psychology (1853 and 1861,) ought also to be compared with the former one. See also Coleridge's Aids to Reflection, i. 168 seq. The terms Sensationalist, Idealist, and Mystic, are nearly always used in the present lectures in the sense in which Morell, following Cousin, uses them; viz. to express those who place the ultimate test of truth in sense, innate ideas, or feeling, respectively.[99.]E.g. In the history of the eighteenth century in France. (See Lect. [V].) In estimating the effects of philosophical opinions, care must be used, to distinguish the results which may be thought by opponents to flow from such opinions by logical inference, from those which have been proved by history to flow from them in fact. Some portion of Cousin's brilliant criticism, in the Hist. de la Phil. Française du 18e siècle, and in the Ecole Sensualiste, is thought to be open to exception on this ground. It is from a conviction of the importance of not attributing to a philosopher that which we merely conceive to be a corollary, though a logical one, from his opinions, that the writer has abstained from introducing here into the text examples of the different views sketched, and has treated the subject in this page broadly and without minuteness. The religious results here stated to appertain to particular metaphysical opinions must accordingly be regarded as logical tendencies, not as necessary effects. The truth of opinions must not be tested merely by supposed consequences, though the practical value of such a test ought to be allowed its due weight.[100.]A statement of the steps of proof similar to those described here, by which we ascend to the knowledge of a Deity, is to be found in the Sermons of the late lamented Rev. Shergold Boone (Sermons 2-7; and especially 2 and 3; 1853). Compare also the steps of proof which Rousseau gives in the Confession of the Savoyard Vicar of the Emile, analysed in Lect. [V].[101.]These charges are frequently made indiscriminately against all who hold that expedience is a sufficient explanation of the origin of moral ideas. They were true in a great degree against Utilitarians of the last century, together with some of those in the early years of the present. But when applied at the present time, they only indicate a tendency, not a fact; as may be seen in the delicate manner in which Mr. J. S. Mill has explained the doctrine of Utility, in a series of papers in Fraser's Magazine for 1861.[102.]The first of these two views is seen in Kant, with whom the forms of thought are only regulatively true; the second in Schelling and Cousin. The references for studying Kant's religious views will be found in a note to Lecture [VI].[103.]The dangers of such a view arise from those results which have been pointed out in Sir W. Hamilton's Dissertations (Diss. I. on Cousin). In reference to the office of the intuition in science, Dr. Whewell's view, in the Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, may be adduced as one which appears to possess the advantage designed by Schelling's theory, and not be open to those criticisms which have been directed against it. Possibly a true philosophy of the action of the intellectual faculties in reference to religion might be obtained by transferring to it the analysis which Dr. Whewell has given of their action in reference to science. Dr. McCosh, in his work on the Intentions of the Mind (1859), has done much towards effecting it.[104.]In Morell's Philosophy of Religion (c. 5 and 6,) are remarks on the relation of intuition to inspiration, to which attention may be directed, but only in a psychological point of view. Pious minds that believe in miraculous inspiration will rightly hesitate before holding any particular psychological theory of the field of its operation; yet it would seem, if we may hazard a conjecture, that it is the intuitive power of the mind which is mostly the organ to which the divine revelation is unveiled, and on which the inspiring influence acts. It is certain that we cannot understand the modus operandi, but we may without irreverence humbly seek to discover the field on which God's Spirit condescends to operate. In this view inspiration would be analogous to natural genius psychologically, but wholly different theologically, inasmuch as all who believe in its miraculous character must hold firmly that it is due to a supernatural elevation of this mental power by immediate operation of divine agency, whereas the discoveries of ordinary genius are due to the unassisted and normal condition of the faculty. Morell, in the passage referred to, will probably be thought to be right in the psychological question, and wrong in the theological.[105.]The mysticism of the Quakers of the seventeenth century, and of Swedenborg in the eighteenth, is of this character. The excessive self-mortification of the Franciscan order in the middle ages may be set down to the influence, perhaps not consciously analysed, of the same standard used for guidance. On Mysticism, see Morell's History of Philosophy, ii. 332 seq. and 356 seq.; and his Lectures on the Philosophical Tendencies of the Age (Lect. III.); on Swedenborg, see National Review No. 12; and on mystics generally, consult the interesting work of the lamented Rev. R. A. Vaughan, Hours with the Mystics, 1856.[106.]As in Spinoza, or the school of Schelling.[107.]As in Herbert in the seventeenth century, and Theodore Parker in the nineteenth. On the intuitional theology, see McCosh, Divine Government, b. iv. ch. 2. § 4. (note.)[108.]The above are only a very few instances, of which many will occur hereafter; but they will sufficiently indicate that the French infidelity is mostly connected with the appeal to the first test of truth, sensation; German rationalism, the result of an appeal to an intuitive faculty “transcending consciousness;” English deism, and the earlier forms of German rationalism, the appeal to the ordinary reason, as able to create religion for itself. The separate appeal to feeling has generally, it will be perceived, caused too much belief, instead of too little; mysticism instead of scepticism.[109.]This was the view presented in the teaching of Cousin and the Eclectic school of France. Many of the younger thinkers of Europe now consider that the history of philosophy constitutes the whole of philosophy, and is not merely, as here maintained, the preliminary to it. This new view is probably unconsciously derived from Hegel, and is the residuum left by his philosophy. Two able living French critics, Renan and Scherer, have so very clearly expressed this view of the function of philosophy, that it may be well to quote their words (see Note 9); the more so, as this subject will be named again in Lect. [VII]. Renan has also expressed the same ideas in the Revue des deux Mondes (Jan. 15, 1860), De la Metaphysique et de son avenir.[110.]It is not from any wish to evade the real question that the writer thus avoids taking a side in the metaphysical dispute. His object is to explain the various effects of metaphysical theories on religious belief; and while considering that the respective evil effects of these systems are a logical corollary from them, as well as an historical result, he is prepared to admit, as previously remarked, that men are sometimes better than their systems, and do not always draw the logical conclusions from their own premises; and therefore he has not thought it right to make these lectures a direct argument on behalf of some favourite metaphysical system, and attack on some rival one. In such case, the history would lose its independent character. While therefore he has never concealed his opinions on the subject of religion, he has thought it more proper not to obtrude, except indirectly, his opinions on that of metaphysics.[111.]This is the question at issue between modern Positivists and their opponents. Comte declared the possibility of discovering the fixed laws on which society depends as really as the physical ones of matter. Mr. Mill, in his account of the logic of history (Logic, b. vi. c. 4. (6-10)), lays down more maturely the theory of such a process. On the contrary, Mr. Kingsley, in his inaugural lecture at Cambridge, 1861, asserts the very opposite position; and, in his wish to elevate the influence of individual men on the course of events, almost reduces history to a series of biographies.[112.]The kind of analysis here alluded to may be illustrated by referring to one of the Essays of Mr. D. Masson, in which he has compared in a very striking manner Shakspeare and Goëthe, by regarding their respective works as reflecting the mental peculiarity of each writer. He considers the meditative melancholy of Shakspeare's youth, as expressed in his Sonnets, to be the clue to the reflective analysis that in later life could depict the doubts of Hamlet.[113.]Christian Maerklin (1807-1849), a fellow student of Strauss at Tübingen, whose views were unsettled, partly by a tone like that of the Renaissance derived from the contrast of classic and Christian culture, and partly by the philosophical speculations of the time. He embraced pantheism and the mythical idea of Christianity. For ten years after 1840 he undertook ministerial work, and then left the church, and till his death in 1849 devoted himself with assiduity to the business of education. A short memoir of him was written by Strauss in 1851, C. Maerklin, ein Lebens-und-Character-Bild aus der Gegenwart; a brief review of which is given in the National Review, No. 7.[114.]Sterling (1806-1844), a clergyman, curate to archdeacon Hare. His works were edited, with a memoir prefixed, by the archdeacon in 1848; and a life written of him by Carlyle (1851.)[115.]Blanco White (1775-1841), a Spanish priest, who became a protestant, and a refugee in England. He was much respected in Oxford, and the University gave him a degree. He afterwards turned unitarian, and perhaps at last deist. His life was published in 1845; and his mental character analysed in the Quarterly Review No. 151, and the Christian Remembrancer vol. 10.[116.]Mr. F. Newman. See Lect. [VIII].[117.]See further remarks concerning the purpose of the course of Lectures in Lect. [VIII].[118.]John xx. 26-29.[119.]E.g. Mr. J. J. Conybeare (1824), on the History and Limits of the Secondary Interpretation of Scripture; Dr. Burton (1829), The Heresies of the Apostolic Age; Dr. Hampden (1832), The Scholastic Philosophy in relation to Christian Theology; as well as several works which investigate doctrines historically, such as the Lectures on the Atonement by Dr. Thomson (1853), by Dr. Hessey on the Sabbath (1860).[120.]See above, p. [8].[121.]By Dr. Burton in 1829, An Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age.[122.]Burton was such a careful student, that he hardly omitted anything on the subject which had been published up to his time. Subsequent investigations have added little material directly for the knowledge of Gnosticism, but much for a better appreciation of those sources from which it sprung. The oriental philosophy, as is shown in note [3] to Lect. I, is much better known; in like manner the Neo-Platonic. The Jewish Cabbala has also been made known by A. Franck (Memoires sur la Cabbale). The speculations too of the new Tübingen school, of which Baur's work on Gnosis, 1835, is an example, have been specially directed to the study of the origines of the Christian church and of Gnostic heresy, and however unsatisfactory in results, present much valuable research. Kurtz in his Kirchengeschichte § 48-50, and Hase, Id. § 75-82, refer to several other monographs of the same kind. See also the discussion on Gnostic sects in Professor Norton's Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. ii.[123.]Such instances are seen in the Renaissance, in the state of France during the eighteenth century, and in some of the writings of the English deists and German critics, as will be shown in subsequent lectures. A general view is given, in the introduction to Houtteville's Le Christianisme prouvé par des faits, of “the method of the principal authors for and against Christianity from its beginning,” (translated 1739.) Hase also quotes a work of D. Baumgarten-Crusius, De Scriptoribus sæc. II. qui novam relig. impugnarunt, 1845.[124.]There are four sources of information in reference to the opinions of the heathens concerning Christianity; viz. (1) the slight notices which occur in heathen literature, on which see note [12]; (2) the works written expressly against Christianity, which are sufficiently analysed in the text and foot-notes; (3) the special replies to these attacks, on which see notes [13], [17], [19]; (4) the general treatises on evidence in the early fathers, on which see note [49]. The recent publication of Pressensé's work, 2e série, t. 2, where the analysis of the two latter sources is ably executed, renders unnecessary the publication of an analysis of each. Several of them are also analysed in Schramm, Analysis Patrum, 1782.[125.]It has been recently made a matter of dispute whether Plato's own description of the teaching of the Sophists is not rendered untrustworthy by these faults. See Grote's History of Greece, vol. viii. ch. 67.[126.]These tendencies are discussed so fully and with such great learning by Neander (Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. Introduction), and by Pressensé, Hist. de l'Eglise Chrétienne, (2e série, t. ii. ch. 1), to whom I am largely indebted, that it is unnecessary to quote the original sources. Neander exhibits an analogous process in the Jewish religion, in sects of the later times of the nation. See also Döllinger's Judenthum und Heidenthum (translated 1862.)[127.]The mental character of Lucretius has been well analysed by Mr. Sellar, in the volume of Oxford Essays, 1855.[128.]Pressensé (ut sup. 2e série, t. ii. 77 seq.) has ably sketched the character of Lucian. His utter scepticism is seen in the Ζεὺς τραγῳδός (47-49).[129.]Instances, with references, may be seen in the introductory chapter in Neander, p. 18 seq.[130.]The Greek literature offers the opportunity for studying the whole process. See Grote, i. ch. 16, previously quoted.[131.]The character Cæcilius, in the dialogue of Minucius Felix, is made to express this view, (c. 8. and elsewhere.) A useful modern edition of this dialogue is given by H. A. Holden, 1853.[132.]This reaction deserves to be made the subject of special study. Pressensé is one of the few writers who have pointed out its importance, (2e série, t. ii. ch. 1.) Also compare the remarks in Benjamin Constant's posthumous work Du Polytheisme Romain, 1833. (t. ii. I. 12, 13, 15.) Kurtz refers on this subject to Tzchirner's der Fall des Heidenthum, i. 404, (1829.); E. Kritzler's Helden-zeiten des Christenthum, vol. i. (1856), and Vogt's Neo-Platonismus und Christenthum (1836.) Also Cfr. Tzchirner's Apologetik (1804.) c. 2, parts 2 and 3.[133.]The Meditations of M. Aurelius were edited by Gataker (1698.) See concerning them Fabricius, Biblioth. Græc. v. 500, (ed. Harles); Donaldson, Gr. Lat. ch. 54, § 2; and concerning his opinions, Neander's Kirchengesch. I. 177. Mr. G. Long has recently translated the Meditations into English. The philosophy of the Roman Stoics, of which M. Aurelius is one of the best types, is briefly but excellently treated by Sir A. Grant in the Oxford Essays for 1858. Also consult Ritter's History of Philosophy, vol. iv. b. 12, ch. 3, and Neander's paper on the relation of Greek Ethics to Christianity in the Zeitschrift für Christliche Wissenchaft und Christliches Leben (1850,) translated in the American Bibliotheca Sacra for 1853.[134.]Pressensé even suggests (2e. série, t. ii. p. 62) that the ultimate result was almost the nirvana of Budhism. It will be observed, that the view taken in the text concerning the Neo-Platonic philosophy, for which I am largely indebted to Pressensé, is different from that which regards it as monotheism, and which has been made popular by Mr. Kingsley's novel, Hypatia, and by his lectures on the Schools of Alexandria (Lect. 3), 1854.[135.]Ritter happily calls this philosophy Neo-Pythagoreanism, as the former was Neo-Platonism.[136.]E.g. the Alexander of Pontus, whom Lucian holds up to ridicule. On Apollonius of Tyana, see a subsequent note.[137.]Crescens is named in Justin Martyr (Apolog. II. 3), who wrote against his attack; Tatian (Oral. adv. Grac. c. 3); Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. iv. 16). The last, on the strength of Tatian, accuses him of causing Justin's death.[138.]Cornelius Fronto is referred to by Minucius Felix (Octav. ch. 9 and 31), as having charged incestuous banquets on the Christians. Tzchirner (Opusc. Acad. 1829. p. 294) conjectures that his work may have been a legal speech against some Christian, which implied a defence of the imperial persecution. Part of Fronto's works have been found during the present century, and edited with a dissertation on his life and writings by Angelo Mai. (On his work against Christianity, see p. 57 of the dissertation.) A brief account of them may be found in Smith's Biographical Dictionary sub Fronto.[139.]Lucian probably lived from about A.D. 125 to 200. Consult the account given by Donaldson (Gr. Lit. ch. 54, § 3 and 4) of his life, opinions, and works, where a comparison is drawn between him and Voltaire: also Mr. Dyer's article Lucianus in Smith's Biographical Dictionary; also Fabricius' Bibliotheca Græca, v. 340 (ed. Harles); Lardner's Collection of Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, Works, vol. viii. ch. 19. The satire referred to above is entitled Περὶ τῆς Περεγρίνου τελευτῆς.[140.]We learn from other writers that Peregrinus was a real character; but Aulus Gellius (xii. 11), gives a much more favourable character of him than Lucian.[141.]The passage (of which this is Tzchirner's paraphrase) is: Πεπείκασι γὰρ αὑτοὺς οἲ κακοδαίμονες τὸ μὲν ὅλον ἀθάνατοι ἔσεσθαι καὶ βιώσεσθαι τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον, παρ᾽ ὅ καὶ καταφρονοῦσι τοῦ θανάτου καὶ ἑκόντες αὑτοὺς ἐπιδιδόασιν οἱ πολλοί; ἕπειτα δὲ ὁ νομοθέτης ὁ πρῶτος ἕπεισεν αὐτοὺς ὡς ἀδελφοὶ πάντες εἷεν ἀλλήλων, ἐπειδὰν ἅπαξ παραβάντες Θεοὺς μὲν τοὺς Ἑλληνικοὺς ἀπαρνήσωνται, τὸν δὲ ἀνεσκολοπισμένον ἐκεῖνον σοφιστὴν αὐτῶν προσκυνῶυσι καὶ κατὰ τοὺς ἐκείνου νόμους βιῶσι. Pereg. Prot. § 13.[142.]Cfr. Pereg. Prot. § 11 and 12.[143.]Bp. Pearson considered (Vindic. Ignat. part. ii. 6,) that an allusion is made to the death of Ignatius, (Cfr. Le Moyne, Varia Sacra (pref.) 1694, for a somewhat similar argument in reference to Polycarp.) A. Planck in his Lucian und Christenthum (part i.) in Stud. und Krit. 1851, the references to which are given in note [12] of these lectures, tries to show that Lucian alludes even to Ignatius's letters. If he does not succeed in establishing this point, he at least (part iii.) makes Lucian's knowledge of Christian literature extremely probable.[144.]These are enumerated by A. Planck, (id. part ii.)[145.]Huet thinks the date was subsequent to A.D. 246. (Origeniana i. c. 3, § 11, ed. 1668.)[146.]There is a doubt whether the Celsus against whom Origen wrote is the friend to whom Lucian has addressed his life of the magician Alexander of Abonoteichus. The arguments on this question are stated and weighed in Neander's Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. 169, and Baur's Geschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, p. 371. Both conclude that the persons were different. The evidence of their oneness is chiefly Origen's conjecture that they were the same person (Cont. Celsum. iv. 36.) The evidence against it is, (1) that Lucian's friend attacked magical rites; the Celsus of Origen seems to have believed them; (2) that Lucian's friend was probably an Epicurean, the other Celsus a Platonist or Eclectic; (3) that the former is praised for his mildness, the latter shows want of moderation. Pressensé nevertheless (ut sup. vol. ii. p. 105) regards them as the same person.[147.]B. i. c. 28. The references are made to the chapters in the Benedictine edition by De la Rue (Paris, 1733.) The earlier part of b. i. is miscellaneous in nature and seems prefatory; and it is not easy to determine the relation of Origen's remarks in it to the arrangement of Celsus's book.[148.]Speaking generally, B. i. ch. 27, 28, 32, may be taken as the one, and the rest of b. i., together with b. ii. as the other.[149.] B. ii. § 32.[150.]B. i. 28, 32-35.[151.]B. i. 37, 58, 66.[152.]B. i. 38, 68.[153.]B. i. 57; ii. 9, &c.[154.]B. ii. 21.[155.]B. ii. 24.[156.]B. ii. 16.[157.]B. iii. 38.[158.]B. iii. 59, 55, 57, 78.[159.]B. iii. § 1 and elsewhere.[160.]B. iii. § 5.[161.]B. iii. § 5.[162.]B. i. 17, 18; i. 22.[163.]B. iv. 71; vi. 62.[164.]B. iv. 48.[165.]B. vii. 3; viii. 45.[166.]B. vii. 14.[167.]B. iv. 22, 23.[168.]B. iv. 74; vi. 49, &c.[169.]B. vi. 60.[170.]B. iii.[171.]B. v. vi. vii.[172.]B. iii. 10.[173.]B. iii. 5, 14.[174.]B. iii. § 55; viii. 73.[175.]B. viii. 69.[176.]B. viii. 69.[177.]B. iii. 44, 50.[178.]B. iii. 59, 62, 74.[179.]B. iii. 55; viii. 37.[180.]B. vii. 9; i. 2; i. 9; iii. 39; vi. 10.[181.]B. vi. 15; vi. 22, 58, 62; v. 63; vi. 1.[182.]B. iii. 22; vii. 28-30.[183.]B. iv. 37; vi. 49.[184.]B. iv. 14; v. 2; vii. 36.[185.]B. iv. 62, 70.[186.]B. v. 14; vii. 28, 36, vi. 78.[187.]B. iv. 74, 76, 23.[188.]B. iii. 65.[189.]B. v. 14, 15.[190.]B. vii. 68; viii. (2-14) 35, 36.[191.]B. viii. 2.[192.]B. iv. 99.[193.]B. iv. 3, 7, 18.[194.]B. iv. 74.[195.]On the alteration in the attacks, Cfr. Gerard (of Aberdeen), Compendium of Evidences, 1828 (part ii. ch. 1.)[196.]Porphyry lived from about A.D. 233 to 305. For his life and writings see Holstenius de Vit. Porphyr. (1630); Fabric. Bibl. Græc. v. 725. (ed. Harles); Lardner's Works, viii. 37; Donaldson's Gr. Lit. ch. 53, § 7. For his attack on Christianity consult Neander's Kirchengesch. i. 290; Pressensé ii. 156.[197.]His own words, quoted in Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. iii. 19), have been thought to imply this, but seem merely to state his acquaintance in youth with Origen. See Holsten. Vit. Porphyr. p. 16.[198.]Cousin (Pref. to Edition of Abélard Sic et Non, p. 61, note 46,) considers that a passage which Boethius quoted from Porphyry was the means of reviving philosophical speculation on this point.[199.]He seems especially to have felt the difficulty which was before noticed as marking one type of religious opinion, the craving for a theology which rested on some divine authority, revelation from the world invisible, (Cfr. Augustin's criticism on him in De Civ. Dei. x. ch. 9, 11, 26, 28); and hence he drew such a system from the real or pretended answers of oracles, in his περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας, of which fragments exist in Eusebius and Augustin (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. v. 744). Heathens, it would seem, had consulted oracles on this very subject of Christianity; and it is these, the genuineness of which may be doubted, that he uses. His aim seems to have been to support the existing religious system; and for this purpose he favoured the alliance with the priestly system, and the institution of religious rites. See Neander Kirchengesch. i. 293.[200.]On this work, κατὰ Χριστιανῶν, see Holsten. (Vita Porphyr. c. x.) who quotes at length from the Fathers the principal passages in which allusion to it is made.[201.]Omitting allusion to the references concerning the canon furnished in older works, e.g. of Cosin, Dupin, Jones, Lardner, Michaelis, some of which were written in reference to the controversy between the Romanists and Reformed, others between the Christians and freethinkers, we may at least name Moses Stuart's work on the Canon of the Old Testament, and Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons with reference to the New; (the former is apologetic, the latter independent and slightly rationalistic, but full of learning;) and especially the work on the Canon of the New Testament by Mr. B. F. Westcott (1855), and the article on Canon by him in Smith's Biblical Dictionary, where references to fuller literary materials are given.[202.]Hieronymi Opera, (at the end of the Proem. of the Commentary on Galatians) vol. 4. part i. p. 223, Benedictine edition of Martianay, 1706; also Galat. ii. 11 (id. p. 244); also at the end of book xiv. (Isaiah liii.) vol. iii. p. 388; also Ep. 74 to Augustin (id. iv. part ii. 619, 622.)[203.]Euseb. Eccl. Hist. vi. c. 19 (ed. Gaisford, p. 414) gives a long extract from Porphyry. Of the second book nothing is known.[204.]On the school of Alexandria see H. E. F. Guericke Schola quæ Alex. floruit, 1825 (p. 51-81); Matter's Essai sur l'école d'Alexandrie, 1840; Neander's Kirchengesch. II. 908 seq. 1196 seq. On the allegorical method of interpretation adopted by Origen, see Huet's Origeniana II. quæst. 13 (vol. i. 170); Conybeare's Bampton Lecture for 1824 (Lect. 2-4); R. A. Vaughan's Essays and Remains (Essay I); and an article in the North British Review, No. 46, August 1855. Also compare a note on systems of interpretation in Lect. [VI].[205.]Euseb. Præp. i. 9; x. 9; which passages merely express the hostility of Porphyry.[206.]In Jerome's Proem. to Daniel are four passages. (See Works, vol. iii. p. 1073-4.)[207.]See Jerome. Comm. on Matt. xxiv. 15 (b. iv. vol. iv. p. 115).[208.]As early as the time of Spinoza, from whose work, the Theologicus Politicus, Collins may perhaps have indirectly derived hints; doubts of the authenticity of parts were expressed; and the inquiry was pursued by Michaelis and Eichhorn: but the modern criticism on it dates especially from Berthold (1806), who impugned its authenticity. Bleek (1822), De Wette, Von Lengerke of Königsberg (1835), Maurer (1838), more recently Hitzig (1850), and Lücke (1852), followed on the same side. The English theologian, Dr. Arnold, adopted the same view. The contrary opinion has been maintained by Hengstenberg (1831), Hävernich (1832), Keil (1853); Delitzch (in Herzog's Encycl. 1854), Auberlen (1857), by Moses Stuart, and by Dr. S. Davidson (Introduction to the Old Testament, 1856). Hengstenberg, Hävernich, and Auberlen are translated. The first of these three is valuable, especially for the literary and exegetical questions; the second as a controversial commentary; the third for tracing the organic unity of the book.[209.]The importance attached to the occurrence of Greek words is much over-estimated. They can only be shown to be four, which occur in ch. iii. 6, 7, 10; viz., קיתרה κιθάρα, סמבא σαμβυκή, סומפניה συμφωνία, פסלתרין ψαλτήριον; all of which relate to musical instruments, not unlikely to be introduced by commerce, and which would naturally be called by their foreign names. Some of the writers named in a preceding note have examined incidentally the character of the Hebrew and Chaldee of Daniel, and consider that both are similar to those of works confessedly of the age of Daniel; and that the Chaldee is separated by a chasm from that of the earliest Targums. Professor Pusey delivered a lecture on the subject in the university, containing the results of his own recent studies, in the summer of the present year, which will form one of a printed course of lectures on Daniel. See also an article by the Rev. J. McGill in the Journal of Sacred Literature, Jan. 1861.[210.]E.g. the wars of the kings of the north and of the south, c. xi.[211.]Viz., till about B.C. 164.[212.]He seems also to have entered into some examination of the specific prophecies; for he objects to the application of the words “the abomination of desolation” to other objects than that which he considers its original meaning. See Hieronym. on Matt. xxiv. 15, the reference to which is given in a preceding note.[213.]A few other traces of Porphyry's views remain, which are of less importance, and are levelled against parts of the New Testament: e.g. the change of purpose in our blessed Lord (John vii. [Hieronym. vol. iv, part ii. p. 521 (Dial. adv. Pelag.) Ep. (101) ad Pammach. Several are given in Holsten. (Vit. Porphyr. p. 86)]), the reasons why the Old Testament was abrogated if divine, [Augustin. Epist. (102, olim 49, Benedict. ed. 1689) vol. ii. p. 274, where six questions are named, some of which come from Porphyry:] the question what became of the generations which lived before Christianity was proclaimed, if Christianity was the only way of salvation; objections to the severity of St. Peter in the death of Ananias; and the inscrutable mystery of an infinite punishment in requital for finite sin. (Aug. Retract. b. ii. c. 31. vol. i. p. 53, concerning Matt. vii. 2.)[214.]Hierocles' work was called Λόγοι φιλαλήθεις πρὸς τοὺς Χριστιανούς. Our knowledge of it depends upon the refutation which Eusebius wrote of it; and upon passages in Lactantius (Instit. v. 2, and De Mort. Persecut. 16.) Concerning Hierocles see Bayle's Dictionary, sub voc. (notes); Fabric. Bibl. Gr. i. 792. note; Cave's Hist. Lit. i. 131. ii. 99; Lardner's Works, vol. viii. ch. 39. § 1-4, and Neander's Kirchengesch. i. 296.[215.]On Apollonius of Tyana, see Lardner's Works, vol. viii. ch. 39. § 5, 6. Ritter's History of Philosophy (vol. iv, b. xii. ch. 7), and especially the monograph by C. Baur of Tübingen, Apollonius von Tyana and Christus oder das Verhaeltniss des Pythagoreismus zum Christenthum (1832); also the Abbé Houtteville's Essay affixed to the Discourse on the Method of the Principal Authors for and against Christianity, translated 1739; and the article Apollonius by Professor Jowett in Smith's Biographical Dictionary.[216.]He was probably midway between Pythagoras and the Alexander named by Lucian.[217.]It was written about A.D. 210, at the request of Julia Domna, and is entitled τὰ ἐς τὸν Τυανέα Ἀπολλώνιον. On this life by Philostratus see Fabric. Bibl. Gr. v. 541; the above-named works of Houtteville and Baur; Donaldson's Gr. Lit. ch. lii. § 7; Pressensé ii. 144 seq.; and a recent translation of Philostratus with remarks by A. Chassang, “Le Marveilleux dans l'Antiquité” (1862).[218.]Lardner and Ritter think that Philostratus did not write with a polemical reference to Christianity, but Baur concludes otherwise. Dean Trench has made a few remarks in reference to this question (Notes to Miracles, p. 62).[219.]On Iamblichus's Life of Pythagoras, see Fabricius's Bibl. Gr. v. 764; Lardner viii. 39. § 7, who however concludes in this case, as in that of Philostratus, that the book was not designed against Christianity.[220.]Charles Blount in 1680. See Lect. [IV].[221.]A.D. 313.[222.]A.D. 361-3.[223.]Κατὰ Χριστιανῶν. See Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vii. 738; Lardner viii. 46. § 2, and 4; Donaldson iii. 303. Fragments of it are preserved in Cyril's reply. The Marquis d'Argens, at the court of Frederick the Great of Prussia, translated and tried to unite them. Défense du Paganisme par l'Empéreur Julian, 1764.[224.]On the life and reign of Julian, see Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. 22-24); Fabricii Lux Evangelii, 1721, c. 14, where the edicts which refer to Christianity are collected; Lardner viii. 46; Abbé de la Bletterie's Vie de Julien; Neander, Kirchengesch iii. 76. and 188, who also wrote in 1812 a monograph on the subject; Wiggers in Illgen's Hist. Zeitschr. 1837; Milman's Hist. of Christianity iii. 6. On Julian's works see Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vi. 719 seq.; Donaldson iii. 57. § 6.[225.]Wyttenbach Opusc. i. 6; Donaldson iii. p. 307.[226.]By Strauss, Der Romantiker auf dem Throne des Caesaren oder Julian der abtruennige 1847.[227.]There are some good remarks on Julian in Waddington's Church History, ch. viii.[228.]He also made the well-known attempt to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem. On the alleged miracle which prevented the execution of the scheme, see Warburton's works, vol. iv., Lardner, vol. viii. ch. 46. § 3, and Milman's note to Gibbon (c. 23.) Warburton believes the miracle; but Lardner hesitates. The original passages which refer to it are Amm. Marcell. xxiii. ch. 1; Ambr. Ep. xi. 2; Chrysost. adv. Jud. et Gent.; Greg. Naz. Orat. 4. adv. Jul.[229.]E.g. Ep. to Ecdidius (Ep. 9, Spanheim's edition, 1696); Decree to the Alexandrians (Ep. 26, 51); Ep. to Arsacius (49).[230.]Cyril, adv. Jul. B. iii. and iv.[231.]B. iv.[232.]B. ii.[233.]B. iii.[234.]B. iii.[235.]B. v.[236.]B. v. and vii.[237.]B. vi.[238.]B. x.[239.]B. vii. and x.[240.]B. viii.[241.]B. vi.[242.]B. x.[243.]Greg. Naz. Op. i. Orat. 4 and 5.[244.]Q. Aurelius Symmachus was deputed by the senate to remonstrate with Gratian on the removal of the altar of Victory (A.D. 382) from the council hall; and afterwards, when appointed (384) præfect of the city, he addressed a letter to Valentinian requiring the restoration of the pagan deities to their former honours. Both Symmachus's address and St. Ambrose's refutation are given in Cave's Lives of Fathers (Life of Ambrose, § 3. p. 576.)[245.]Augustin refutes this objection in several places of the first five books in the De Civ. Dei.[246.]The work of Cosmas Indicopleustes in the middle of the sixth century is designed to show the falsehood of the Ptolemaic system of astronomy in assuming the world to be a sphere, and proves the continuance of speculation on the harmony of science and revelation. See Donaldson's Gr. Lit. III. 59. § 3.[247.]P. [14-17].[248.]This appears from a letter of Porphyry to his wife Marcella, discovered by Angelo Mai, and edited at Milan, 1816, in which his personal religious aspirations are seen.[249.]See this discussed towards the close of Lect. [VIII].[250.]It is obvious that this belief blunted in some degree the force of arguments built upon miracles and prophecy: this circumstance explains the comparative absence of these arguments in the early apologies against the heathens. The reality however both of miracles and prophecy is always implied; and occasionally the direct appeal to them is used. The apologists were thus compelled, even if no other reason founded deeper in the philosophy of evidence had inclined them to do so, to lay stress on what would now be called the argument from internal evidence for the truth of Christianity. The Hulsean Prize Essay for 1852, by Mr. W. J. Bolton, contains a useful account of the apologists, with extracts from their writings. And Mr. H. A. Woodham, in the preface to his edition of Tertullian's Apology (1843), has made some very suggestive remarks. Both writers show that the fathers use the argument from miracles more frequently than had generally been supposed.[251.]For the intellectual and social condition during this period, consult Guizot's History of Civilization in France; Hallam's History of the Middle Ages, ch. ix. part i.; and History of Literature, ch. i. Also three works by Laurent, Les Barbares et le Catholicisme, La Papauté et l'Empire, La Féodalité et l'Eglise.[252.]See Lect. [I]. p. [7].[253.]See Guizot's History of Civilization in Europe, ch. vi. and x.; Laurent, La Reforme, 1861 (p. 131-271.) The last-named work, to which frequent reference will be made, is an able production by a Professor (probably a freethinker) in the university of Ghent. It is the eighth of a series of works, entitled, Etudes de l'Histoire de l'Humanité, of which three were named in a previous note, and contains a careful examination (1) of the reform, religious and social, of the middle ages; (2) of heterodoxy, both as free thought and incredulity, during the same period; (3) of the Renaissance; (4) of the principles of the Reformation.[254.]It has been conjectured that the name was probably derived from the circumstance that it was the philosophy which arose in the various Scholæ which Charlemagne established throughout his empire; and afterwards was that which existed in the scholæ or halls of the mediæval universities. Brucker has discussed the previous history of the word (History of Critical Philosophy, iii. 710; and Hauréau, nearly repeating him, Philosophie Scholastique, i. 7, with a view to show how it was used before it became changed into the meaning just assigned to it). See also a few remarks by Saisset in the Revue des Deux Mondes, 1850, vol. iii. p. 645.[255.]It is called logic, if we denote that part of it which studies the mode of investigation, and the comparative value of evidence in the different fields of inquiry. It is the psychological branch of metaphysics, if it explores the structure and functions of the mind, ascertaining the subjective validity of the data employed in the method which forms the subject matter of contemplation in logic. It is the ontological branch, if it reaches to the still higher problem of searching for the traces of objective reality, independent of the act of human thought, which are involved in the data previously examined.[256.]The Διαλεκτικὴ of Plato, it is well known, was the method of analysis by means of language, and comprised the field which his successor Aristotle separated in two, viz. Διαλεκτικὴ, logic, the inquiry concerning method; and Σοφία, metaphysics, the inquiry concerning being. See Bp. Hampden's article Aristotle in the Encyclopædia Britannica; Ritter, History of Philosophy (English translation), vol. ii. b. 8, c. 2 and 3; and vol. iii. c. 2.[257.]Viz. antecedents in the mechanical class of sciences, types in the zoological and botanical. The distinction is that which is indicated by Mill under the names of “uniformities of causation,” and “uniformities of coexistence.” See Mill's Logic, vol. i. b. i. ch. 7, § 4; vol. ii. b. iii. ch. 22; b. iv. ch. 7. Compare also Whewell's Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, vol. i. b. iii. c. 2. and b. viii.[258.]This is the explanation of the fact already quoted from Cousin, that the mediæval philosophy depended on a quotation made by Boëthius from Porphyry.[259.]Viz. Darwin's Inquiry into the Origin of Species, 1859.[260.]Inasmuch as the realist assumed that the innate ideas of the mind gave a knowledge of real essences in nature.[261.]“Neque enim quæro intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam,” are the words of the realist Anselm (Proslog. I. p. 43. ed. Gerberon.) “Dubitando ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus,” are those of the nominalist Abélard. (Sic et Non, p. 16. ed. Cousin.)[262.]The best modern work on scholasticism is the Mémoire Couronné, by B. Hauréau, 2 vols. 1850, in which the various authors and schools of thought are fully treated. Among older sources, the following are important; Brucker, iii. 709-868; Tennemann's Manual, § 237-79; Ritter's Christliche Philosophie; Buhle, Geschichte der Neuern Philosophie, i. 810 seq.; Hampden's Bampton Lectures (I. and II.), and the article by him on Aquinas in the Encyclopædia Metropolitana; also Maurice's Mediæval Philosophy.[263.]Cfr. Tennemann's Manual of Philosophy, § 243.[264.]On Abélard's personal character, see Guizot's Lettres d'Abélard, 1839; and Remusat's Abélard, 1845, vol. i. part x., the latter of which writers has long studied his life, philosophy, and theology; also Taillandier's article La Libre pensée du moyen age (Revue des Deux Mondes, Aug. 1861); Tennemann's Gesch. der Phil. viii. 170 seq.; Tennemann's Manual, § 251.[265.]In his work Liber Calamitatum.[266.]In his Introductio ad Theologiam, and Theologia Christiana. See Neander's Kirchengeschichte, viii. 505 seq.[267.]In A.D. 1121.[268.]The nature of this contest is given in Mabillon's edition of Bernard (Præf. § 5), and the characters of the two disputants are sketched in Sir J. Stephens's Lectures on the History of France, ii. (163-207); also in Neander's Kirchengesch., vol. viii, p. 533 seq.[269.]It was published by Cousin in 1836, with an elaborate preface relating to the literary history of Abélard's works and opinions, as well as the character of the scholastic philosophy generally. An edition of the text, including the passages not printed by Cousin, has subsequently been published by Henke and Lindenkohl, (Marburg, 1851.) See also Neander's Kirchengesch., viii. p. 523 seq.[270.]The following are examples of the questions proposed: No. (5.) Quod non sit Deus singularis et contra; (6) Quod sit Deus tripartitus et contra; (14) Quod sit filius sine principio et contra; (18) Quod æterna generatio filii narrari vel sciri vel intelligi possit et non; (28) Quod nihil fiat casu et contra; (30) Quod peccata etiam placeant Deo et non; (38) Quod omnia sciat Deus et non; (121) Quod liceat habere concubinam et contra; (153) Quod nulla de causa mentiri liceat et contra; (156) Quod liceat hominem occidere et non.[271.]Abélard's Preface is analysed and discussed in Cousin, p. 191 seq., and Stephens, vol. ii. p. 169.[272.]Viz. (1) the peculiarities of their style; (2) their use of popular language on scientific questions; (3) the corruption of the text; (4) the number of spurious books; (5) the retraction by the fathers of their own previous statements; (6) their careless use of profane learning; (7) the describing things as they appear, not as they are; (8) their ambiguous use of words.[273.]R. Simon had published a work, Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament, 1678, in which positions were stated which were new at that time, but which, as Hallam observes, (Hist. of Lit. iii. 299,) “now pass without reproof.” The history of the controversy connected with Simon is contained in Walch's Bibliotheca Theologica Selecta, 1765, vol. iv. (251-9.) See also Bp. Marsh's Lectures, part i. p. 52.[274.]See Martène et Durant in Thesaur. Nov. Anecdot. (1717) vol. v. Pref. p. 3.[275.]Cousin thinks him a sceptic. So also Sir J. Stephens, ii. 170. Taillandier (Rev. des Deux Mondes quoted above) takes the view given in the text, that his character was complex. See also Laurent's La Reforme, pp. 318-331.[276.]See Preller's Hist. Phil. Gr. Rom. xxxviii. § 158. Bayle's Dictionary, art. Zeno (vol. iv. edition 5, p. 539 note).[277.]Kant's Kritik (Transcendent. Dial. b. ii. div. 2, p. 322, Engl. transl.). The illustration is borrowed from Taillandier, to whose article I am indebted for several other suggestions.[278.]Grote, vol. viii. ch. 68.[279.]In his Prologue.[280.]See Cousin's Preliminary Dissertation, p. 201-3.[281.]See Laurent's La Reforme, p. 263.[282.]It may be sufficient to allude to names like those of Innocent III., Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Frederick II., Cimabue, Dante; and to the great works of law (civil and canon) and philosophy, the great works in Gothic architecture, and the revival of painting, as examples of the intellectual character of the age; and to the commencement of constitutional liberty, the final settlement of Europe, and commencement of the present European kingdoms, as illustrations of its advance in social government.[283.]In 1229.[284.]The work is attributed to Joachim, a Calabrian abbot, about A.D. 1200, whom Dante names (Paradiso, xii. 140). It was edited in 1250, with an introduction probably written by John of Parma, general of the Franciscans. Mosheim (History, cent. 13, part ii. ch. 2, § 33 note), has carefully investigated the subject. See also Laurent's La Reforme, pp. 295-302; F. Spanheim's Works, vol. i. p. 1665; Neander's Kirchengesch. vol. viii. p. 844 seq.[285.]In 1260. Labbei Concil. (1671) vol. xi. part. ii. p. 2361.[286.]Rev. xiv. 6.[287.]The work so entitled passed under Lessing's name; but its authorship has been recently disputed. In an article in Illgen's Zeitschrift für die Historiche Theologie for 1839, part iv., on the life of A. Thaer compiled by Koerte, there is evidence given that Lessing was only the editor, Thaer having sent it to him anonymously. See also a remark in a letter of Lessing, Works, vol. xii. p. 503, (Lachmann's edition.)[288.]Les Ruines, c. 24.[289.]E.g. in Benjamin Constant's work, De La Religion, and Laurent's Etudes de l'Histoire de l'Humanité; Buckle's History of Civilization; Comte's Philosophie Positive. It is chargeable in spirit on many others.[290.]The letter of Gregory IX., in which the statement is contained, bears date July 1, 1239. It is quoted in Raynald's Supplement to Baronius. (Annal. Eccles. 1747. vol. ii. p. 218, 13 of Greg. IX. xxvi.)[291.]See Renan's Averroes et l'Averroisme, pp. (292-300), an admirable work, to which we shall have occasion frequently to refer.[292.]Michelet's Hist. de France, iii. 201. The charge of unbelief against the Templars was never satisfactorily established.[293.]Decameron, i. 3, “Le Tre Annella.”[294.]On Averroes see Ritter's Geschichte der Christlichen Philosophie, vol. iv. b. 11, c. 5; Tennemann's Manual, § 259; Laurent's La Reforme, p. 338-45, 364-85; and especially Renan's Averroes, p. 205 seq.[295.]Inferno, iv. 144; “Averrois che il gran comento feo.”[296.]Renan enlarges in one chapter of his work in a most interesting manner on “Le rôle d'Averroès dans la peinture Italienne du moyen âge,” pp. (301-16). The illustrations above given are borrowed from it.[297.]In the poem Piers Plowman, pp. 179, 180, Wright's edition; the doctrine of the Fall and its consequences is the subject of the scepticism named.[298.]Inferno, Canto x; 15, 118.[299.]Compare Dante, Inferno, xix. 104, &c. See Laurent's Reforme, 364-70, 372-78.[300.]On this subject, see Laurent, b. iii., and J. D. Burchard's Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien, 1860.[301.]1400-1625.[302.]An Essay of great value, on “the Literature of the Italian Revival,” appeared in the British Quarterly Review, No. 42, April, 1885, from which most of the illustrations and remarks which follow in the next two pages are taken.[303.]See Laurent, id. p. 364-70.[304.]Among recent critics who think so are Foscolo (Quarterly Review, No. 42, p. 521), and Panizzi (Boiardo and Ariosto, vol. i. 203), and in part also Hallam (History of Literature, vol. i. 195, 303-5), and Guinguené (Hist. Lit. de l'Italie, vol. iv. c. 3-101).[305.]The view here taken is maintained with great ability by the writer of the Review named above. One joke, which he cites as not uncommon in these epics, is the representation of St. Peter streaming with perspiration with the labour of opening and shutting the gates of Paradise (Morg. Mag. 26. 91); and, as a more allowable one, the frequent citation of a certain archbishop Turpin as a witness for any absurdities, (Berni Orl. Innam. 18. 26), whose existence and pseudonymous work Pope Calixtus II had pronounced to be real.[306.]The last remnant of these miracle plays, which occurs decennially in a valley in Bavaria, is an actual proof of this statement. An interesting account of the last celebration of it was written by Dr. Stanley in Macmillan's Magazine for October, 1860.[307.]See Dean Trench's Introduction (ch. 3) to his Translations from Calderon.[308.]The proof of this position must be sought in the Review already indicated. The illustration from Byron is due to it. Pulci lived 1431-87; Bello, about the end of the fifteenth century, the exact date not known; Ariosto, 1474-1533.[309.]Eichhorn's Geschichte der Literatur, vol. ii. 443; Bayle's Dictionary, sub voc.; Halllam's History of Literature, vol. i. 4. 21.[310.]Roscoe, in his works on the Medicis, is silent about these tendencies. In the fifteenth century, Ficinus, Poggio, Politian, Aretin; and at the beginning of the sixteenth, at the Roman court, Paolo Giovio and Bembo were suspected. See Brucker's Hist. Philosophiæ, Period iii. part 1. l. ii. c. 3.[311.]The comparison of the painting of the Roman, or the later Florentine schools of the sixteenth century, with that of the older Florentine, or of the Umbrian of the fifteenth, will establish this fact so far as regards art.[312.]Similar periods will be hereafter described; viz. French “Humanism” in Lect. [V]. and German in Lect. [VI].[313.]This fact is also taken from the anonymous reviewer before quoted.[314.]It is hardly necessary to point out that physical science has not only made discoveries in its own sphere, but in logic also. By presenting a definite body of verified truth, it has rendered possible the creation of a system of real as distinct from formal logic. In the scientific discoveries that have been made, we can read the logic of the process by which they were attained, and thus raise “applied logic” to the dignity of a science, and indirectly discover a logic of probable evidence. It is the intellectual, and not merely the material value of physical science to which allusion is made in the text. It shows at once what man can know, and the limits where knowledge must give place to faith, and science to revelation.[315.]See Guizot's Hist. de la Civilisation de l'Europe, ch. (9-11.)[316.]Reginald Pecock was a bishop of Chichester about the middle of the fifteenth century; who in his rigour against the Lollards himself incurred the charge of deism. His work which laid him open to it, “The Repressor of overmuch blaming of the Clergy,” has lately been edited with an instructive preface by Mr. Churchill Babington. The work appeals to reason, but is not open to the charge of deism. In tone it may be compared to Locke's “Reasonableness of Christianity.”[317.]The contest in which Hütten was engaged against the monks, with the Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum, which related to it, is treated in Sir W. Hamilton's Discussions on Philosophy, p. 205-240 (reprinted from Edinburgh Review, No. 53, March 1830). Strauss has also published two works on Hütten, the one a memoir, 1858; the other translations from his work, 1861. (See National Review, No. 12, April 1858.)[318.]Servetus, though a Spaniard by birth, learned his protestantism in Italy; Castellio, Ochino, and the Sozini were Italians. See Hallam's History of Literature, i. 366, 379; 552 seq.: for their views Merle D'Aubigné's “Three Discourses on the Authority of the Scripture.” On the Reformation in Italy see Quinet's Œuvres, vol. iv. b. iii. ch. 1; and Professor Blunt's Essays, p. 89, (essay reprinted from Quarterly Review, January 1828.)[319.]It is important to notice that the question asked by the reformed churches was simply, what did the inspired apostles teach? and the dispute between them and the Roman catholics referred to the question, what source was most suited for supplying information on this point;—whether ecclesiastical tradition or the original documents of the inspired teachers themselves.[320.]See Hallam, History of Literature, i. 315. A large portion of Renan's Averroes, viz. pp. 322-432, is devoted to this subject, and is the source of much of the following information.[321.]Renan, id. (122-8.)[322.]Renan, id. (353-67.)[323.]He lived about A.D. 200.[324.]On Pomponatius (1462-1530), see Ritter's Gesch. der Ch. Phil. V. pp. 390 seq.; Hallam's History of Literature, i. 315; Renan, Averroes, 353, &c.; Tennemann, Manual, § 293; and the Life in the Biographie Universelle. His theological treatise which was chiefly suspected was De Immortalitate; but Brucker quotes from his other writings to prove atheism. As early as 1512 a Lateran council took notice of the disbelief of immortality.[325.]In place of the scholastic philosophy, which was disappearing, but which lived in Padua nearly a century later than in the rest of Europe, three tendencies manifested themselves; viz., (1) a reconstruction of metaphysical philosophy, on a new, partially Platonic basis; (2) a reconstruction of logic, by P. Ramas in France (see Hallam, History of Literature, i. 388-90); (3) attention to experimental science, which led ultimately to the experimental method of Bacon. Telesius and Campanella belong to the first of these classes. The system of the former is briefly explained in Ritter's Christliche Philosophie, p. 561 seq.; Renouvier's Histoire de Philosophie, t. 2; and in Hallam, History of Literature, ii. 7; and of the latter in Hallam, id. (372-6); Tennemann's Manual, § 317; and Ritter, id. vi. 3, seq. Both systems are metaphysical rather than theological. That of Cesalpini is also explained in Ritter, id. v. 653, seq.; in Hallam, id. ii. 5; that of Cardan in Brucker, period iii. part ii. lib. l. c. 3; Buhle, Gesch. der Neu. Phil. ii. 857, seq.; and in Morley's Life of Cardan (1853).[326.]Giordano Bruno (1550-1600), Ritter's Chr. Phil. v. 595. &c. See Hallam's Hist. of Lit. ii. (8-14.) Buhle's Geschichte der Phil. ii. 703. His life and opinions have been described by Mr. G. H. Lewis in the Biogr. Hist. of Phil. p. 314, seq. A list of his works is given in Buhle Gesch. der Neu. Phil. ii. 703, seq., and more briefly in Tennemann's Manual, § 300. They were collected and published in 1830. One of them, the “Spaccio della bestia trionfante,” being very scarce, and only known by report, was formerly thought to be a translation of the celebrated work “De Tribus Impostoribus.”[327.]In his travels he reached Oxford, and was admitted to lecture in the university.[328.]Lucilio Vanini (1586-1619.) His chief works were “Amphitheatrum Æternae Providentiæ,” and “De Admirandis Naturæ Arcanis.” The latter was condemned by the Sorbonne. Full particulars are given in Brucker's Hist. Phil. period iii. part ii. 1. i. ch. 6. See also Buhle, Gesch. der Neu. Phil. ii. 866, seq.; and the Life in the Biographie Universelle.[329.]On this reaction, see Hallam, Hist. of Lit. i. (536-44).[330.]This revival is at the same time the proof of the existence of doubt. Staüdlin, in Eichhorn's Geschichte der Lit. vol. vi. p. 24 seq. enumerates treatises of this kind by Ficinus, Alfonso de Spina, Savonarola, Æneas Sylvius, and Pico di Mirandola. The rare work of Sebonde also, which has been supposed to be deistical, is really a treatise on natural religion as an evidence of revealed. See Hallam's Hist. of Lit. i. 139, 40; Tennemann's Manual, 277.[331.]On Socrates, see Grote's History of Greece, vol. viii. ch. 68.[332.]On Bacon and Descartes see Ritter, Christliche Philosophie, v. 309 seq., and vii. 3 seq., Buhle iii. (1-86), Tennemann's Geschichte, x. 200 seq.; and the references given in Tennemann's Manual, § 312 and 333. Among English sources, see Morell's History of Philosophy, i. 76, 166; Lewes' History of Philosophy, Hallam's History of Literature, vol. ii. part 3. ch. 3. On Descartes, see also Bouillet's Histoire de la Revolution Cartesienne (1842) p. 95-144; and on Bacon, the monograph by Kuno Fischer of Jena, translated 1857.[333.]In chronological order Herbert and Hobbes ought to come before Spinoza. Indeed their works furnished suggestions to him; but as the forms of scepticism which follow are arranged by nations, it is more convenient to place Spinoza here alone previously to treating the others.[334.]The best means of understanding Spinoza is the perusal of his own works. It is only in modern times that he has been understood. The old works against him, Reimannus (de Atheismo), Mansveldt, Cuperus, and Kortholt (de Trib. Impostoribus), are chiefly obsolete. A memoir exists by Colerus, 1706. Among the moderns he has been carefully studied by E. Saisset, both in Essais de Philosophie Religieuse, 1859, and in a dissertation prefixed to a translation of his works, 1861, and in a learned article in the Revue des Deux Mondes for Jan. 1862; also by Damiron, Essai sur Spinoza. Among English writers, see Hallam, History of Literature, iii. 344 seq., Lewes' History of Philosophy, and an article on the Theologico-Politicus in the British Quarterly Review, No. 16, for Nov. 1848, referring to Spinoza's theology. In Germany his opinions have been examined by Ritter, Chr. Phil. vii 169 seq.; Buhle iii. 503 seq.; Tennemann's Geschichte, x. 462 seq. Schleiermacher in early life expressed his opinion of him in words of extravagant eulogy, (Reden über die Relig., p. 47, quoted in Lewes' History of Philosophy.) Consult also the various references given in Tennemann's Manual, § 338. A volume of Spinoza's writings has lately been found and published, which is made interesting by a photograph from a rare portrait of him.[335.]In the admirable article in the Revue, quoted in the last note, Saisset discusses carefully the sources from which Spinoza derived his theology and philosophy. Cousin in earlier life had regarded his philosophy as borrowed from Descartes (Fragm. de Phil. Cartes., p. 428 seq.), and Ritter coincides in this opinion. More recently, in the new edition (1861) of his Hist. Gen. de la Philos., he regards it as borrowed from Maimonides (p. 457.) See on Maimonides' Philosophy, Adolph. Franck's Etudes Orientales, p. 318. Saisset after a careful examination comes to the conclusion that the theology was suggested by Maimonides' More Nevochim, but that the philosophy was derived neither from the Kabbala, nor Averroes, nor Maimonides, but from Descartes.[336.]See the references given in a former note.[337.]Compare the Essay on Cousin by Sir W. Hamilton (Dissertations, p. 32).[338.]Ethica, part ii. prop. 1 and 2.[339.]P. [100].[340.]Theol. Polit. c. vi.[341.]Ep. xxi. vol. iii. p. 195. (Lips. ed. 1846.) It will be hereafter seen how exactly this result is parallel to the religious philosophy and Christology developed in the Hegelian school. See Lect. [VII].[342.]A succinct account of the contests in Holland is given in C. Butler's Life of Grotius, c. 5, 6, 12. See also Amand Saintes, Histoire de la Vie Spinoza, p. 63; Hase's Church History, E. T. § 356; Hagenbach, Dogmengeschichte, § 235.[343.]A good analysis for an English reader may be found in the article quoted above from the British Quarterly Review.[344.]Theol. Pol. ch. 19, 20. The idea here is borrowed from Hobbes.[345.]Ch. 1-6.[346.]Ch. 7-12.[347.]Ch. 13-15.[348.]Ch. 1, 2.[349.]Ch. 3.[350.]Ch. 6.[351.]Ch. 8.[352.]Ch. 12-14.[353.]De Veritate. See Lect. [IV].[354.]Great critical sagacity is evinced in describing the characteristics of prophecy (ch. i. and ii.), and the historic peculiarities of the Pentateuch (ch. viii.); which however, it would seem, had been observed partially by some of the learned Dutch theologians of the time.[355.]This lay at the bottom of the opposition which Buxtorf and Owen offered to the view, now universally adopted, of Capellus and Morinus, that the vowel points were a late introduction in Hebrew, perhaps of the sixth to the tenth centuries A.D. The history of the controversy is given in Walch's Bibliotheca Theol. Select. vol. iv. p. 244, 268; and Wolf's Bibliotheca Hebr. part iv. p. 7; part ii. p. 25 and 270. The Formula Consensus of the Helvetic church (1675), (on which see Schweizer in Herzog's Real. Encycl. xi. 439 seq.; Henke's Kirchengeschichte, vol. iv. § 34; Hagenbach's Dogmengesch. § 222), was partly designed against the views of Capellus. On the question of the vowel points, consult the Prolegomena to Walton's Polyglot, iii. 39; Carpzov. Crit. Sacr. 242 seq. Wolf's Bibliotheca Hebraica, ii. 475; iv. 214 seq.; and among the moderns, Gesenius's Gesch. der Hebr. Sprache, § 48.[356.]E.g. in Le Clerc. See Sentimens de Quelques Theologiens d'Hollande sur l'Histoire Critique du père Simon, and his Five Letters on Inspiration; and in the French Roman catholic critic, R. Simon, in reference to whom see note on p. [83].[357.]E.g. by Dr. Lee on Inspiration, Lect. [I].[358.]Compare Dr. Lee's learned and valuable work on Inspiration, ch. iv. The writer of this lecture need hardly say, that he cordially and reverently believes in the miraculous character of scripture inspiration; and that the remarks here in the text are only aimed at the extravagant views held in the seventeenth century, such as that, above named, in reference to the Hebrew vowel points. No Christian however ought to fail to appreciate the deep reverence for holy scripture implied in the theory from which dissent is here expressed.[359.]A note, giving proof of the fact here stated, will be found at the end of Lect. [VIII].[360.]Wordsworth, Ecclesiastical Sonnets, part ii. 47.[361.]See above p. [11].[362.]This computation regards lord Herbert of Cherbury as marking the commencement, and Hume the close; the doubters of the latter half of the eighteenth century, such as Gibbon, being excluded, because their writings are marked by the forms of French unbelief.[363.]The former in the struggle of Arminians and Calvinists in the Puritan controversy; the latter in the revolution supposed to be caused in our literature by the influence of Dryden.[364.]In addition to the references given in Lect. III. (p. [106]) see Cousin's Hist. de la Phil. au 18e siècle (Leçon 3); and Remusat's Essai sur Bacon, 1857; but especially the sketch of the relation of Bacon's philosophy to religion in K. Fischer's monograph on Bacon. (c. x. and xi.)[365.]This inquiry was called forth in the disputes of the established church against popery and puritanism, and led to works in favour of toleration by Chillingworth, Bp. Jeremy Taylor (Liberty of Prophesying), and later by Milton; and towards the close of the century by Locke.[366.]Hobbes's Leviathan was not published till 1651; but the thoughts were evidently suggested by the woes of the reign of Charles I.[367.]Herbert (1581-1648). His works were, De Veritate, 1624, De Causis Errorum, 1645, De Religione Laici, De Religione Gentilium, 1663. An autobiography was published in 1764. He was answered by Locke (Reason. of Christianity), Baxter, Halyburton, Leland (Deists, lett. 1 and 2), and Kortholt; and his philosophy was attacked by Gassendi. On Herbert see Ritter's Christliche Philosophie, vi. 390 seq.; Tennemann's Gesch. x. 113 seq.; Eichhorn's Gesch. der Lit. 6, 95 seq.; Hallam's History of Literature, ii. 380 seq.; and Lechler's Geschichte des Englischen Deismus, p. 36-54; Remusat in Rev. des. Deux Mondes, 1854, vol. iii. His views in some respects seem to have resembled those of Pecock or Sebonde.[368.]In its mode of treatment it has been compared to Bacon's Wisdom of the Ancients.[369.]In the De Veritate.[370.]De Relig. Gentil., 15. 199. App. to Relig. Laici, 2, 3.[371.]There is a curious record in his journal (Autobiography, p. 171-3) of an earnest prayer for guidance on the subject of the publication of his first book De Veritate, which he no doubt saw was opposed to popular belief.[372.]Lechler, Geschichte des E. D. p. 64.[373.]Because they bear, as he thought, the great test of being self-evident. It will be remembered that the clearness of an idea was the test of the innate character of it in Descartes' system (Principia Philosophiæ, § 10). Such ideas are those which would be regarded in Kant's system as necessary forms of thinking, and in Cousin's as belonging to the impersonal reason.[374.]Hobbes (1588-1679). The Leviathan is a philosophy of society, studied as the development of the individual. He first treats of the individual, book i.; then the commonwealth, book ii.; then the Christian commonwealth, book iii.; and the kingdom of error, book iv.; borrowing the idea from Augustin's De Civ. Dei. The brevity of the notice in the text prevents the possibility of doing justice to the grandeur and to the good sense shown in many respects in Hobbes's works. He was answered by Cudworth (Intellectual System); Cumberland (De Leg. Nat.); Dr. Seth Ward; Bramhall, (1658); Archbp. Tenison, 1760; and Lord Clarendon, in his Survey of Leviathan (1676). For an explanation and criticism on his philosophical principles, see Ritter, ch. vi. 453 seq.; Tennemann, b. x. 53 seq.; Lewes' History of Philosophy; Morell's Id.; Hallam, b. ii. 463 seq.; and on his religious opinions, Leland (ch. iii.), and Lechler (p. 67-107).[375.]Part i. c. 12.[376.]Part iii. c. 39.[377.]Part iii. c. 33.[378.]Coward (1657-1724 circ.) was a physician, who wrote in 1702 Second Thoughts on Human Souls, apparently intended to disprove the existence of spirit and natural immortality, but not of immortality itself as a divine gift from God to man, though opponents disbelieved him in this assertion. The list of answers written is given in Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary under Coward. The house of commons in 1704 condemned the book, and caused it to be burned.[379.]Spinoza's view of religion is the part suggested by Herbert, and his view of the relation of the state to religion that suggested by Hobbes.[380.]See Note [21] (p. [413]).[381.]C. Blount (1654-93) wrote the Anima Mundi, 1679; Life of Apollonius Tyana, 1680; Oracles of Reason, 1695. (See Macaulay, History of England, vol. iv. 352.) He was refuted by Nichols (1723) Conference with a Theist. See Lechler (114-124), and Leland, ch. iv.[382.]The Licensing Act of 1662 concerning the press was allowed to expire in 1679. When James II. came to the throne (1685) the censorship was renewed for seven years; and again in 1693 was revived for two years, at which time it finally expired. See North British Review, No. 60, (May 1859.)[383.]As proved by his work in 1705, The Deist's Manual.[384.]The Oracles of Reason (1693) consists of sixteen papers in several letters to Mr. Hobbes and others, by Ch. Blount, Gildon, and others. Papers (No. 1-4) are a defence of T. Burnet's archæology, or on subjects cognate to it. No. 5 is concerning the deist's religion; 6 on immortality; 7 on Arians, Trinitarians, and Councils; 8 that felicity is pleasure; 9 of fate and fortune; 10 of the original of the Jews; 11 of the lawfulness of marrying two sisters successively; 12 of the subversion of Judaism, and the origin of the Millennium; 13 of the auguries of the ancients; 14 of natural religion; 15 that the soul is matter; 16 that the world is eternal.[385.]No. 14.[386.]No. 5.[387.]Attention had been called a little earlier to the consideration of the first principles of religion, by the Platonizing Cambridge party of More and Cudworth, followers partly of Descartes. See Burnet's Mem. of his Times, i. 187; and the Rev. A. Taylor's able introduction to the edition of Simon Patrick's Works, Oxford 1858, (p. 28-42).[388.]On Locke's philosophy see Ritter Chr. Phil. vii. 449-534; Cousin's Hist. de Philos. au 18e siècle, ch. 15-25; Morell's Hist. of Phil., vol. i. p. 100 seq.; Lewes Id.: Lechler, 154-179. His work the Reasonableness of Christianity typified the tone of the writers on the Christian evidences for the next half century.[389.]For this and the next named controversy, see Lathbury's Non-Jurors (1845), ch. iv., and History of Convocation, ch. 12-14.[390.]On the Bangorian controversy (1717, 18), see Hallam's Constitutional History (vol. ii. 408). A list of the pamphlets which were written during the controversy was made by the antiquarian Thomas Hearne, and is printed in Hoadley's works (3 vols. fol. 1773). See vol. ii. 381, and the continuation in vol. i. 689.[391.]Toland (1669-1722). He was born an Irish catholic, turned protestant, wrote his first deist book, 1696; fled for refuge to the court of Hanover, and found protection there; wrote political pamphlets, and lived abroad till near the close of his life. His chief theological writings are, Christianity not Mysterious, 1696; Amyntor, or Defence of the Life of Milton, 1699 (on the Canon); Nazarenus, 1718; Tetradymus, 1720; Pantheisticon, 1720, sive formula celebrandæ sodalitatis Socraticæ, 1720, a parody on the Christian service books. These are collected in his Miscellaneous Works (1726). (Vol. i. contains his translation of the Spaccio of Bruno.) He was answered by John Norris, Archbp. Synge, and Dr. Peter Browne; by S. Clarke, and by Jones in his work on the Canon. Consult Leland's View of Deistical Writers, Lett, iv.; Lechler (180-210), and (463-73), and note on p. 193.[392.]In his Christianity not Mysterious.[393.]In his Amyntor.[394.]For these facts see the Memoir of Toland prefixed to his Miscellaneous Works, and also Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary.[395.]This opposition increased Toland's bitterness, for, in the following year, 1698, in publishing a Life of Milton, and taking occasion to disprove that Charles I was the author of the Ikon Basilike, he threw out hints of similar forgeries in works attributed to the apostles. The hatred of churchmen was further increased by this work.[396.]See Wilkins's Concilia, vol. iv., 631; Burnet's History of his own Times, vol. iv. 521; Lathbury's History of Convocation (1842), p. 288 seq.[397.]Sect. i.[398.]Sect. ii. ch. 1.[399.]Id. ch. 4.[400.]Ch. 1, 2.[401.]Sect. iii. ch. 2.[402.]Ch. 3.[403.]Ch. 5.[404.]Cfr. his Apology for Christianity not Mysterious 1697, and also a letter from Mr. Molyneux to Locke (Locke's Works, ed. 1723, vol. iii. p. 566), quoted in the memoir (p. 17) prefixed to Toland's Miscellaneous Works.[405.]In his Life of Milton (1698) pp. 91, 92, he had alluded to works falsely attributed to Christ and the apostles. This was attacked by Blackhall as if intended against the canonical scriptures, and was defended by Toland by the publication of the Amyntor, a catalogue of books mentioned by the fathers as truly or falsely ascribed to Jesus Christ, his apostles, &c. The learned Pfaff calls it “insignem Catalogum” (Diss. Crit. Nov. Test. ch. i. § 2).[406.]A Memoir of Lord Shaftesbury (1671-1713), has been lately published (1860). His chief work was the Characteristics. On his religious views see Leland ch. 5 and 6; Lechler 243-265; and on his philosophical views, see Ritter vii. 535 seq.; Eichhorn, Geschichte der Literatur, vi. 424 seq.[407.]On his moral system, see Mackintosh's Dissertation on Ethics, p. 158-166; and on Butler's ethical system, and its relation to Shaftesbury, see the same work, p. 171 seq.[408.]Works, vol. ii. Inquiry concerning Virtue. Charact. ii. 272 etc.[409.]The readings of the text had been disturbed by Courcelles (1658), and by Walton in his Polyglot, which caused an alarm, on which see Hody (De Bibl. Text. 563 seq.), but not widely till Mills, 1707. Mills' readings were attacked by Whitby in 1710, and the arguments of the latter were afterwards turned by Collins against Revelation.[410.]In 1699. Daillé's criticism on the Ignatian Epistles (1666) had shown similar sagacity to that afterwards displayed by Bentley, and bore to his inquiries the same relation which those just named in the test bore to those of Mills.[411.]Collins (1676-1729). His works were on Immortality (1707, 8) in the Dodwell controversy; Freethinking, 1713, refuted entirely by Bentley in the Phileleutherus Lipsiensis. (See also Dr. Ibbot's Boyle Lectures, 1713, where the general subject is treated.) On Necessity, 1715. The Grounds of the Christian Religion, 1724 (occasioned by Whiston's work on Prophecy); answered by bishop Chandler, Samuel Chandler, T. Sherlock, and Moses Lowman; Scheme of Literal Prophecy, 1727, in answer to Chandler. See Leland, ch. vii., and Lechler, 217-240. Henke's Kirchengeschichte, vi. s. 29.[412.]In the two works named below in the text.[413.]E.g. that of Buckle in History of Civilization.[414.]P. 71.[415.]P. 5-27.[416.]P. 32, &c.[417.]P. 56.[418.]P. 86.[419.]P. 92.[420.]P. 100, &c.[421.]Part i. § 1-5.[422.]Id. § 6, 7.[423.]Id. 11.[424.]Id. (8-10.)[425.]Two other writers, Mandeville and Lyons, have been omitted; Mandeville (Fables of the Bees, 1723), because his speculations did not bear directly on religion; Lyons, because his work is not important. In 1723 he published the Infallibility of Human Judgment, in which he analysed the mind, and applied the results of his analysis to the first principles of natural religion, and to discredit the evidences and doctrines of revealed. It bears more resemblance to Toland and Chubb than to any other writers, but is a feeble work, interesting only as showing the prevalence of psychological inquiries, and the tendency to examine psychologically the subject of religion.[426.]E.g. Some of those in Germany, see Lect. [VI] and [VII].[427.]In the Moderator, or controversy between the author of the Grounds, &c. and his reverend opponents, 1727. (Woolston's Works, vol. v.)[428.]Woolston, 1669-1733. His works are collected in five volumes, with a life prefixed. His pamphlets on Miracles were refuted by bishops Pierce, 1729, Gibson, and Smabroke, by Lardner, and by Sherlock in the Trial of the Witnesses. On Woolston, see Leland (Let. 8), Lechler (289-311), Henke, vi. 49.[429.]Sydney Sussex.[430.]A Free Gift to the Clergy, or the Hireling Priests challenged, 1722, (Works, vol. iii.).[431.]See Memoir prefixed to his Works, pp. 5 and 22.[432.]In Discourse iii.[433.]Disc. i. Div. i.[434.]Strauss (Leb. Jes. Introd. § 6) thinks that his bitterness manifests that he did not.[435.]Disc. iv, and Defence, sect. i.[436.]Voltaire, Œuvres Crit. vol. xlvii. pp. 346-356.[437.]Swift's Poem on his Death, Works, vol. xiv. p. 359.[438.]The latest Pastorals of Gibson are not only against Woolston, but other deists also, such as Tindal.[439.]His friends would have found money for the fine; but Woolston could not find securities for his good behaviour if released.[440.]Matthew Tindal, (1657-1733), a follow of All Souls' college, wrote in 1706 The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, probably suggested by Spinoza's writings, to show that the absolute subjection of the church to the state was the only safeguard for public happiness; and in 1730, Christianity as old as the Creation, which was answered by Conybeare 1732, Leland 1733, and by Waterland. The reply of the latter was attacked by Conyers Middleton. On Tindal, see Lechler, 326-341; Leland, Lett. 9; Henke, vi. 57.[441.]Ch. i-vi.[442.]Ch. iii.[443.]Ch. iv.[444.]Ch. v.[445.]Ch. vi.[446.]Ch. ix-xii.[447.]Ch. xiii. p. 258 seq.[448.]P. 272 seq.[449.]Ch. xiv.[450.]See the remarks in Essays and Reviews, 1860, p. 272.[451.]Morgan died 1743. His chief work was the Moral Philosopher, 1737, with two volumes more in reply to opponents. It was refuted by Leland, and the controversy was carried forward in Tracts which are described in Leland's Deists, vol. i. Lett. 11 and 12. See also Lechler, 370-390; Henke, vi. 70.[452.]Vol. i. p. 86, 96. vol. ii. § 1.[453.]P. 145 seq.[454.]Vol. i.[455.]Id. p. 272, &c. ii. § 6.[456.]Id. § 7.[457.]Id. § 10.[458.]T. Chubb (1679-1747), of whom a brief memoir was published 1747. He was the author of various tracts, of which a list is given in Darling's Cyclopædia Bibliographica, 1852. The account of Chubb's views given in the text is brief, partly because of their similarity to others previously named, and partly because the author has been able to see only very few of Chubb's works. But they are explained in Lechler, p. 343-356, and Leland, ch. 13. Chubb's earlier writings seem to be Socinian, his later deistical. His best known works are, A Discourse concerning Reason, 1731; the True Gospel of Jesus Christ, 1739; and Posthumous Works, 2 vols. 1748.[459.]Posthumous Works, i. 287.[460.]Id. i. 292.[461.]Id. ii. sect. 6.[462.]Posthumous Works, ii. 152.[463.]Id. 177, &c.[464.]Id. i. 22.[465.]Another work was published anonymously in 1742, entitled Christianity not founded on Argument, supposed to be written by the younger Dodwell, son of the learned nonjuror. Its aim is to show that Christianity never propagated itself by argument, but that the evidence of it depends upon a personal illumination of each person who believes it. The work was supposed to be a satire on Christianity. If earnest, it marked the truth that emotional causes are intertwined with intellectual in the formation of belief. See Lechler, pp. 411-421; Leland, Lett. xi. The book of Jasher, published in 1751, is a forgery, written probably by some deist (Horne's Introduction, vol. ii. part ii. p. 142. ed. 8).[466.]He was imprisoned in the King's Bench, and kept from starvation by money from the benevolent archbishop Secker. He died in 1768. See Lechler, pp. 313-22; Leland, ch. x.[467.]Bolingbroke (1678-1751). See Schlosser's History of the Eighteenth Century, vol. i. ch. i. § 3 (transl.); Lechler, pp. 396-405; Leland, ch. 22-34.[468.]On Pouilly, see Sir C. Lewis, Inquiry into the Credibility of Roman History, vol. i. ch. i. p. 5, note, Pouilly published in 1722 his Dissertation sur l'Incertitude et l'Histoire des quatre premiers siècles de Rome. (See Mém. de l'Academ. des Inscr., vol. ix.) Beaufort followed out the same line of inquiry in 1738. The two writers are considered to have laid the basis of the modern historical criticism of ancient history.[469.]They are chiefly, A Letter on one of Tillotson's Sermons in vol. iii. of his works; the Essays, in vols. iii. and iv.; viz. Essay 1 on Human Knowledge, (2) on Philosophy, (3) on the rise of Monotheism, (4) on Authority in Religion; and Fragments in vol. v.[470.]Vol. iii. Letter on Tillotson, also Letter to Pouilly.[471.]Vol. v. No. 57, 58.[472.]

Cfr. Remusat's Angleterre au 18e Siècle i. 22, for remarks on Bolingbroke's influence on Pope. The following lines of Pope exactly express Bolingbroke's philosophy:

“The universal Cause
Acts not by partial, but by general laws,
And makes what happiness we justly call,
Subsist not in the good of one, but all.” (Ep. iv. 35.)

The Calas were a family at Toulouse, the father of which was put to death (1762) by catholic fanaticism. Voltaire investigated the facts with care; and, by instituting legal proceedings at Paris, got the sentence of the Toulouse court reversed, and all the reparation that was possible made to the family. Money to defray the expenses was sent to him from all the reformed parts of Europe. The English queen (Charlotte) and the archbishop of Canterbury (Secker) headed the English subscription list. The facts have lately been reinvestigated by the accomplished A. Coquerel fils., Jean Calas et sa Famille, 1858. The narrative is told in the Westminster Review, No. 28, for Oct. 1858. See also Henke's Kirchengeschichte, vi. 298 seq.

On the tomb of Voltaire, now a cenotaph, in the vaults of the Pantheon, is an inscription, “Il défendit Calas, Sirven, De la Barre, et Montbailly.” Since the Pantheon has been converted into a church, the side of the tomb which bears this inscription has been concealed by a screen, so that visitors are only permitted to view one of the other sides.

Démonstrations Evangeliques: (tome 1.) de Tertullien, Orígène, Eusèbe (Præp. Ev.); (2.) Eusèbe (Dem. Ev.), S. Augustin, Montaigne, Bacon, Grotius, Descartes; (3.) Richelieu, Arnauld, De Choiseul du Plessis-Praslin, Pascal, Pélisson, Nicole; (4.) Boyle, Bossuet, Bourdaloue, Locke, Lami, Burnet, Malebranche, Lesley, Leibnitz, La Bruyére, Fenelon; (5.) Huet, Clarke; (6.) Duguet, Stanhope, Bayle, Leclerc, Du Pin; (7.) Jacquelot, Tillotson, De Haller, Sherlock, Le Moine, Pope, Leland; (8.) L. Racine, Massillon, Ditton, Derham, D'Aguesseau, De Polignac; (9.) Saurin, Buffier, Warburton, Tournemine, Bentley, Littleton, Seed, Fabricius, Addison, De Bernis, J. J. Rousseau; (10.) Pard du Phanjas, Le roi Stanislas, Turgot, Stattler, West, Beauzée; (11.) Bergíer; Gerdil, Thomas, Bonnet, De Crillon, Euler, Delamarre, Caraccioli, Jennings; (12.) Duhamel, S. Liguori, Butler, Bullet, Vauvenargues, Guenard, Blair, De Pompignan, De Luc, Porteus, Gérard; (13.) Diessbach, Jacques, Lamourette, Laharpe, Le Coz, Du Voisin, De la Luzerne, Schmitt, Pointer; (14) Moore, Silvio Pellico, Lingard, Brunati, Manzoni, Paley, Perrone, Lambruschini, Dorléans, Campien, Fr. Pérennès; (15.) Wiseman, Buckland, Marcel de Serres, Keith, Chalmers; (16.) Dupin Aíné, Grégoire XVI; (17.) Cattet, Milner, Sabatier; (18.) Bolgeni, Morris, Chassay, Lombroso et Consoni—contenant les apologies de 117 auteurs, répandues dans 180 vol.; traduites pour la plupart des diverses langues dans lesquelles elles avaient été écrites; reproduites integraiement non par extraits. Ouvrage également nécessaire à ceux qui ne croient pas, à ceux qui doutent, et a ceux qui croient, 20 vol. in 4to. Prix: 120 fr. Chaque volume se vend séparément, 7 fr. The references in the above title are to the volumes of the work.

There is an important article on the literature of Apologetics in the North British Review, No. 30, August 1851, the writer of which says that the claim that the above works are translated “integralement” is not literally correct; passages which assault the church of Rome being omitted. He considers that among the works of the above-named series which are not known in England, the most important are, Stattler, Certitude de la Religion révèlée par Jesus Christ; Beauzée, Exposition des Preuves Historiques de la Religion Chrétienne; Abbè Para du Phanjas, Les Principes de la Sainte Philosophie conciliés avec ceux de la Religion; Cardinal de Vernis, La Religion Vengée; Cardinal Polignac, Anti-Lucretius.

---