[96] Hagenbach, tr. p. 63. [↑]
[97] Id., Kirchengeschichte, i, 232. [↑]
[98] Kahnis, p. 43; Tholuck, Abriss, p. 34. [↑]
[99] See the extracts of Büchner, Zwei gekrönte Freidenker, 1890, pp. 45–47. [↑]
[100] Thiébault, Mes Souvenirs de Vingt Ans de Séjour à Berlin, 2e édit. 1805, i, 126–28. See i, 355–56, ii, 78–82, as to the baselessness of the stories (e.g., Pusey, Histor. Inq. into Ger. Rationalism, p. 123) that Frederick changed his views in old age. Thiébault, a strict Catholic, is emphatic in his negation: “The persons who assert that [his principles] became more religious ... have either lied or been themselves mistaken.” Carlyle naturally detests Thiébault. The rumour may have arisen out of the fact that in his Examen critique du Système de la Nature Frederick counter-argues d’Holbach’s impeachment of Christianity. The attack on kings gave him a fellow-feeling with the Church. [↑]
[101] Cp. the argument of Faure, Hist. de Saint Louis, 1866, i, 242–43; ii, 597. [↑]
[102] Examen de l’Essai sur les préjugés, 1769. See the passage in Lévy-Bruhl, L’Allemagne depuis Leibniz, p. 89). [↑]
[103] G. Weber, Gesch. der deutschen Literatur, 11te Aufl. p. 99. [↑]
[104] Zur Gesch. der Relig. und Philos. in Deutschland—Werke, ed. 1876, iii, 63–64. Goethe’s blame (W. und D., B. vii) is passed on purely literary grounds. [↑]