Footnotes

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.

Lecture III.

See p. 82, note.

P. 76, note.

Lecture IV.

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.

In Lecture V.

Edited by Vater.

See p. 177, note.

See p. 164, note.

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.

P. 290, note.

Id.

Lect. VIII.

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.

Psalm lxxiii. 15-17.

See pp. 7, 12.

See pp. 8-12.

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.

B. ii. § 32.

B. i. 28, 32-35.

B. i. 37, 58, 66.

B. i. 38, 68.

B. i. 57; ii. 9, &c.

B. ii. 21.

B. ii. 24.

B. ii. 16.

B. iii. 38.

B. iii. 59, 55, 57, 78.

159.

B. iii. § 1 and elsewhere.

B. iii. § 5.

B. iii. § 5.

B. i. 17, 18; i. 22.

B. iv. 71; vi. 62.

B. iv. 48.

B. vii. 3; viii. 45.

B. vii. 14.

B. iv. 22, 23.

B. iv. 74; vi. 49, &c.

B. vi. 60.

B. iii.

B. v. vi. vii.

B. iii. 10.

B. iii. 5, 14.

B. iii. § 55; viii. 73.

B. viii. 69.

B. viii. 69.

B. iii. 44, 50.

B. iii. 59, 62, 74.

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.

B. iv. 74, 76, 23.

B. iii. 65.

B. v. 14, 15.

B. vii. 68; viii. (2-14) 35, 36.

B. viii. 2.

B. iv. 99.

B. iv. 3, 7, 18.

B. iv. 74.

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.

B. iv.

B. ii.

B. iii.

B. iii.

B. v.

B. v. and vii.

B. vi.

B. x.

B. vii. and x.

B. viii.

B. vi.

B. x.

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.

Ch. 1-6.

Ch. 7-12.

Ch. 13-15.

Ch. 1, 2.

Ch. 3.

Ch. 6.

Ch. 8.

Ch. 12-14.

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).

Part i. c. 12.

Part iii. c. 39.

Part iii. c. 33.

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.

Sect. i.

Sect. ii. ch. 1.

Id. ch. 4.

Ch. 1, 2.

Sect. iii. ch. 2.

Ch. 3.

Ch. 5.

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.

P. 71.

P. 5-27.

P. 32, &c.

P. 56.

P. 86.

P. 92.

P. 100, &c.

Part i. § 1-5.

Id. § 6, 7.

Id. 11.

Id. (8-10.)

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.

Ch. i-vi.

Ch. iii.

Ch. iv.

Ch. v.

Ch. vi.

Ch. ix-xii.

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.)

473.

Instances are to be found in Leland, who discusses his opinions at great length. The reader who compares Leland's quotations with Bolingbroke's works will perhaps think that he has pressed their meaning rather far; but further consideration will show that he has correctly expressed Bolingbroke's spirit and purpose.

Letter on Tillotson.

Ch. iv. 328.

Ch. iv. 227, 8.

Ch. iv. 405, 272.

The history of Apologetik passes through the same phases, and when it devotes itself to the later forms, becomes of less general interest, and is more simply literary; which illustrates the fact that the later doubts are of a much less practical and more recondite character than those hitherto named.

479.

Hume (1711-1776). For his philosophy, see Tennemann, Geschichte, xi. 425; Ritter, Christliche Philosophie, viii. b. 7. ch. ii.; Cousin, Histoire de la Philosophie Moderne, Leçon xi.; Morell, History of Philosophy, i. 338; Lord Brougham's Preliminary Discourse to Paley's Natural Theology, p. 248. For his religious opinions, see Leland, Lett. 16-21; Lechler pp. 425-34. His views on miracles were answered by Paley, Bp. John Douglas, Campbell, and Chalmers.

480.

Works, vol. iv. Inquiry Concerning the Human Understanding; Essay xi. on Providence and Future Life; Essay x. on Miracles.

481.

The miracles connected with the Abbé Paris were defended in La Verité des Miracles de M. Paris, by C. de Montgéron, 1745. See concerning them, C. Butler's Church of France, (Works, v. pp. 135-142); Bp. John Douglas's “Criterion by which the true miracles contained in the New Testament may be distinguished from those of Pagans and Papists;” Tholuck's Vermischte Schriften, i. 183.

482.

E.g. by Professor Powell, in Essays and Reviews.

483.

This line of thought concerning the necessity of establishing the antecedent probability of the fact, in order that the evidence may be logically convincing, is adopted by two writers of very different opinions, by Mr. Mansel (Essay in the Aids to Faith, § 18-23), and Mr. J. S. Mill (Logic, vol. ii. b. iii. ch. 25. § 2). The distinction between wonder and miracle is allowed by Dean Lyall (Propædia Prophetica); and Mr. Penrose (The use of Miracles in proving a Revelation). Cfr. also Doederlin's Instit. Theol. Christ, § 9, 10.

484.

See Aids to Faith, Mansel's Essay, § 22.

485.

There follows hence another peculiarity in reference to miracles; viz., that we require an interpreting mind to explain them. This is the reason why so many thoughtful men believe that the outburst of fire when Julian tried to rebuild the Jewish temple, and the wonder of the thorn in the history of Port Royal, were nothing more than natural wonders. If the final cause be considered to have been sufficient in these cases to warrant divine interposition, at least there was no interpreter to explain them, nor any revealed message to be taught. It must be conceded that this trait is wanting in some miracles recorded in scripture, but not in those which are wrought to attest a revelation, those which we use in proof of a special message from the unseen world. Werenfels (Opusc. Theol. 1718, Diss. v.) has given tests for the discrimination of miracles which are quoted by Van Mildert (Boyle Lect. II. p. 584).

486.

Cfr. Dean Trench's remarks on the apologetic value of miracles, (Notes on Miracles, Introd. ch. vi). In the same work will be found an excellent and interesting account of the various assaults made on the argument from miracles. He classifies the assaults as follows: (1) the Jewish, (2) the heathen (Celsus, &c.), (3) the pantheistic (Spinoza), (4) the sceptical (Hume), (5) that which regards miracles as such only subjectively (Schleiermacher), (6) the rationalistic (Paulus), (7) the historico-critical (Woolston, Strauss). With Dean Trench's remarks. Compare also Pascal, Pensées, part ii. art. 19. § 9; Lyall, Prop. Proph. p. 441; Dr. Arnold's Lectures on Modern History, pp. 133, 137.

487.

E.g. Lessing, &c. Reimarus, &c. See Lect. VI.

488.

Butler (1692-1752). The Analogy was published in 1736. The reader's attention is invited to the excellent edition of it by bishop Fitzgerald (1st ed. 1849), and the able memoir and criticism which precede. Mr. Bartlett has also written a memoir of Butler. Cfr. also Blunt's Essays, p. 490 seq.

489.

For example, some of the physical proofs of immortality in part i. ch. i. are weakened by the discoveries of physiology; and those in favour of the miraculous character of creation, in part ii. ch. ii. would be regarded as of small value by those who hold the hypothesis either of the transmutation of species, or of their occurrence according to a law of natural selection. Some things of a different kind in Butler, which need correction, are pointed out in Fitzgerald's edition. See e.g. p. 184, note.

490.

This is the objection taken by Tholuck (Vermischt. Schrift. p. 192, 3.) A somewhat similar objection is quoted by Fitzgerald from Mackintosh, Introd. p. 49, upon both of which he offers criticisms. A kindred objection has been stated (probably by Mr. Martineau) in the National Review, No. 15. Jan. 1859, (pp. 211-214,) and another by Miss S. Hennell in the Sceptical Tendency of Butler's Analogy, 1857, in which she traces doubt in Butler's life as well as teaching. Others may be found stated and examined in bishop Hampden's Philosophical Evidence of Christianity, 1827. (pp. 229-291.)

491.

This conjecture is given by Fitzgerald in the life prefixed to his edition of the Analogy (p. 36), where also two passages are quoted, one from Foster, and the other from Berkeley, which certain passages of Butler resemble. It would be interesting to know whether the work of Dr. Peter Browne on Things Divine and Natural conceived of by Analogy, 1733, had come under Butler's notice. Many similar passages, as well as references to the sources of the difficulties which Butler answers, are given in the notes to Fitzgerald's edition. Mr. Pattison also (Essays and Reviews, p. 286) has expressed an opinion that Butler was much assisted by the works of his predecessors. The probability is, that in all great works their authors assimilate an amount of information current in the age, as well as create new material. This was probably the case even in works like Euclid's Geometry and Aristotle's Natural History and Organum.

492.

The value of Butler's argument is fully discussed in the admirable work on Butler by bishop Hampden before quoted, which is the best existing commentary on the author: second to it are Chalmers's Natural Religion and Bridgwater Treatise.

493.

Hampden's Phil. Evid. (131-228.)

494.

The revival in the early part of the century was due to the agency of Wesley and Whitfield outside the church; in the latter to those of such men as Romaine, Newton, and ultimately Simeon, within it.

495.

E.g., W. Law's Serious Call, and Christian Perfection.

496.

Viz., by means of the Moravians of Herrnhut, whose founder, Zinzendorf, himself sprang from the pietist movement.

497.

Zech. iv. 6.

498.

The most effective sketch of the intellectual and social state of France in the last century is given in Buckle's History of Civilization, vol. i.; especially in ch. 8, 11, 12, and 14. His narrative only sets forth the dark side of the picture, and the Christian reader frequently feels pained at some of his remarks; but it is generally correct so far as it goes, and the references are copious to the original sources which the author used. I have therefore frequently rested content with quoting this work without indicating further sources. An instructive account of the centralization under Louis XIV is given in Sir J. Stephens's Lectures on the History of France, Lect. 21-23. The reign of Louis XV is treated in De Tocqueville's Histoire Philosophie du Règne de Louis XV. A brief view of the history may be seen in the works of the liberal Roman catholic, C. Butler, vol. v. on Church of France.

499.

The passages from Benoit's Histoire de l'Edict de Nantes, vol. v. p. 887 seq., and Quick's Synodicon, i. p. 130 seq., respecting the cruelties of the dragonnades, are quoted at length in Buckle, i. p. 624, note.

500.

This occurred in the contest concerning the Gallican liberties, and the dispute about the Bull Unigenitus. Concerning the former see C. Butler's Church of France (Works, vol. v.) p. 34 seq., and Hase's Church History, § 424; and, on the latter, Butler ut sup. 188-249, and Hase, § 420.

501.

The nature of the literature of the reign of Louis XIV, and the alteration of position of authors in the new reign, are explained in Buckle, i. ch. 11 and 12.

502.

1715-1723.

503.

Literature really became a political power, and exercised a similar influence to that of the modern newspaper press.

504.

Professor Webb of Dublin, in his work, The Intellectualism of Locke, has given evidence which establishes this point.

505.

On Condillac see Cousin, Cours de la Philosophie Morale, leçon 3; Renouvier, Philosophie Moderne, v. 2. § 4 Villemain, Cours de Literature, ii. 20; Morell's History of Philosophy, i. 148 seq.; Lewes' History of Philosophy.

506.

It may prevent ambiguity to state that the term materialism, when employed in these lectures, is not used in its modern popular sense of mere animalism, the obedience to the lower side of human nature; but in its technical sense, as the kind of philosophy which so regards spirit to be a property of matter as to produce inferences unfavourable to the belief in immortality or moral obligation.

507.

On the scepticism of Montaigne (1532-1592) see Tennemann's Geschichte der Philosophie, ix. 443; Vinet's Essai de Philosophie Morale; Sainte-Beuve Critiques et Portraits Littéraires, vol. iv.; Hallam's History of Literature, ii. 29; Emerson's Representative Men; and R. W. Church in Oxford Essays, 1857.

508.

On Charron (1541-1603) see Tennemann, Id. ix. 527. Sainte-Beuve, t. xi.; Hallam, i. 570, ii. 362, 511; and the article in the Biogr. Univ.

509.

On Bayle (1647-1706) see Tennemann, xi. 268 seq.; Renouvier, Phil. Mod. iii. 3. § 6; Sainte-Beuve, iii. 392.

510.

On Fontenelle (1657-1757) see Sainte-Beuve, iii. and the Biogr. Univ. Another writer, Dolet (1509-1546), was also suspected, at an earlier period, not only of scepticism but of atheism. See his Life, by J. Boulmier, 1857.

511.

On R. Simon see Lect. III. p. 83.

512.

See Lechler's Gesch. des Eng. Deismus, p. 445.

513.

On the great eagerness for English literature in France at that time, see the facts collected by Buckle, i. (658-670).

514.

A list of those that are said to have been translated is given by Lechler, Id. 446. On the comparison of English and French deism see Henke's Kirchengeschichte, vi. s. 131.

515.

1726-1729. Cfr. Villemain, Cours de Litt. i. (168-177). A letter of Fleury, quoted from Schlosser by Lechler (Id. 446), proves that his fears were excited by the influence which English literature was producing.

516.

On this charge of attack about 1750 see Buckle, i. 716-718; and on the origin of the attack on the church, and the causes why it preceded that on the state, Id. 684 seq. Cfr. also De Tocqueville's Louis XV, t. ii. ch. 10.

517.

Voltaire lived 1694-1778. The Life by Lord Brougham, in Lives of Men of Letters, is not only very full of facts, but contains some very able criticism, especially on the dramatic works of Voltaire. More biographies have been given in this lecture than in others, in accordance with the reasons explained in Lec. I. p. 33, because in this period the infidel influence was the result of the teachers, as much as of the ideas taught. See concerning Voltaire, Henke's Kirchengesch. vi. 166; Schlosser, Hist. of Eighteenth Century, i. 2. § 1, iv. § 1. Bartholmess, Hist. Crit. des Doctr. Relig. de la Phil. Mod. i. 211 seq.; Bungener's Voltaire.

518.

In 1726.

519.

Sirven was condemned in 1762, on an unjust suspicion of causing his daughter's death, to prevent her becoming a protestant.

520.

La Barre was a youth of seventeen, who, on the suspicion of having injured a crucifix on the bridge of Abbeville, was condemned (1763) to be tortured on the rack, to have his tongue cut out, and to be put to death; which sentence was literally executed. See Biographie Universelle, sub Voltaire, vol. xix. p. 484, and Brougham's Life of him (94-99).

521.

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.

522.

Carlyle's Miscellaneous Works, vol. ii. It will be observed that many of the following remarks are abbreviated from this source.

523.

Carlyle, Id. p. 113.

524.

i.e. the age of Louis XV. See Id. pp. 180-185.

525.

On Voltaire's power of ridicule, see Id. 120, 167; and on his power of order, 163 seq.

526.

Id. p. 161.

527.

Id. p. 119.

528.

The question of Voltaire's blasphemy is treated by lord Brougham (Life, p. 7).

529.

The four volumes are xxxii-xxxv of the Œuvres Complètes, 8vo. 1785. Vol. xxxii contains the philosophical works, of which ch. 2, 6, 7, 9, of the Traité de Metaphysique, relate to religion; also the Profession de Foi des Théistes; the Homélies prononcées à Londres. Vol. xxxiii contains the Examen de Milord Bolingbroke; and the Epitre aux Romains. Vol. xxxiv, La Bible enfin Expliquée, where the notes contain Voltaire's views fully. Vol. xxiv, Histoire de l'Etablissement du Christianisme.

530.

On the persecutions which fell on literary men, see Buckle, i. (672-684.)

531.

The proof of this assertion is clear in his Traité de Metaphysique, c. 2. (Œuvres, vol. xxxii); in Letter iii of Memmius to Cicero; in the Profess. de Foi des Théistes; and is shown by the fact of his opposition to the Encyclopædists on the ground of their atheism; which is confirmed by the inscription on his tomb, “Il combattit les athées.” It is his blasphemous tone which has, not unnaturally, given rise to the idea of his atheism.

532.

“Ecrasez l'infame” are the words, the initials of which, signed at the end of his letters to infidel friends, baffled the French police. Buckle considers them to have been designed against the French church, but offers no proof. It is to be feared that they were rather intended against the Christian religion, if not against the sacred person of our blessed Lord.

533.

See his Commentary (Œuvres, vol. xxxiv.), the Homélies (vol. xxxii,), and the Histoire (vol. xxxiv.).

534.

On the contrast of his historic tone to that of Bossuet, see Buckle, i. 726, and Schlosser, History of the Eighteenth Century, (English translation), vol. i. ch. iv. § 2. p. 273.

535.

Compare Carlyle's remarks ut sup. p. 175.

536.

Id. 105.

537.

On Frederick's entertainment of these French refugees, see Henke, Kirchengesch. vi. 180; Schlosser, vol. i. 2. § 3.

538.

La Mettrie (1709-1751). His views are seen in the Discours Préliminaire to his Hist. Nat. del âme, and in the L'homme machiné (1748). See a criticism on him in Ph. Damiron's Memoires pour servir à l'Histoire de Philosophie au 18e siècle (vol. i. pp. 1-49), reprinted from the Report of the Académie des Sciences; also Henke, vi, 13.

539.

De Prades (1720-1782). See Henke, vi. 201; also the article in the Biographie Universelle.

540.

D'Argens (1704-1771). See Damiron, Id. ii. 256-376.

541.

On the old coteries of Rambouillet, &c., see Hallam's Hist. of Literature, iii. 137.

542.

D'Alembert (1717-83). For particulars of his life, see Brougham's memoir in Lives of Men of Letters. For his philosophy, see Damiron, ii. 1-114; Henke, vi. 218; Schlosser, i. 4. § 7. His infidelity was known to friends, but not openly avowed.

543.

Marmontel (1723-99). See Sainte-Beuve, Portraits, vol. iv.; Schlosser, ii. 2. § 1.

544.

Grimm, 1723-1807. See Sainte-Beuve, vol. vii. The Correspondance Litt. par le Baron Grimm et Diderot is the great source for the knowledge of his character.

545.

St. Lambert (1717-1803). See Damiron, ii. 144-256.

546.

Abbé Raynal (1711-96). See Schlosser, ii. 2. § 1. Henke, vol. vi. enumerates many more of the same class. Particulars of all are given in the Biographie Universelle.

547.

The following refer to places where the tendency and spirit of this whole movement are described, as well as literary information supplied. Henke, vi. 208, &c.; Bartholmess, i. 117-210; Lerminier's Influence de la Phil. du 18e siècle (1833); Morell's Hist. of Phil. i. 158, &c.; Maurice, Mod. Phil. p. 527-59; H. Martin's Hist. de France, vol. xv. and xvi. liv. 96, 99, 100, 101; Renouvier, Mod. Phil. b. v. ch. 2. § 6-8; also Kuno Fischer's Bacon, p. 451, and the references above given to Schlosser and to Damiron; Tennemann (Manual, § 378, &c.) also gives many literary references.

548.

Diderot (1713-84). His life and character have been sketched by Carlyle, (Misc. Works, vol. iv.); also by Damiron, ii. (227-324); St. Beuve, i. 355. Also see Villemain, Tableau de la Litt. au 18e siècle, lec. xix. 20. His novels are the parent of the impure novel of modern times. See Schlosser, i. 4. § 5, ii 2. § 1.

549.

In the Essai sur le Mérite et la Vertu, pp. 73, 87, he allows deism, the God of moral order. Similarly in the Pensées Philos. § 46, but it is the God of nature. But in the Dialogue with D'Alembert he teaches atheism. On his theological views see Damiron, ii. 261 seq.

550.

§ 25, &c.

551.

See Carlyle, Misc. Works, iv. 322.

552.

Helvetius (1715-1771). See C. Remusat in Rev. des Deux Mondes, Aug. 15, 1858. On the circle of Helvetius see Carlyle ut sup. 287 seq.; and on their atheism Buckle, i. 786 seq. Concerning Helvetius himself see Ritter's Christliche Philos. viii. b. ix. ch. 2; Cousin's Hist. de Phil. Morale, leçon 7; Schlosser, i. 4. § 6.

553.

Viz., De l'Esprit et de l'Homme (Œuvres compl. 1818, vol. i. and ii.). Both treatises are excellently analysed in the table of contents prefixed to the work. The allusions in the text here may be thought to fail from their brevity in showing that Helvetius's opinions were a logical corollary from his principles; they cannot at least give any notion of the great power of analysis exhibited by him in expressing his own views.

554.

In Discourse ii.

555.

Id.

556.

D'Holbach (1723-89). The Système de la Nature bears the name of a Mirabaud, secretary to the Academy. Some have thought it to be written by Robinet, author of a similar work. (His works are discussed in Damiron, ii, 480 seq.) Concerning the work see Villemain, iii. leç. 38; Damiron, i. (93-177); Ritter, Christ. Philos. viii. b. 9. ch. 3; Schlosser, i. 4. § 1. On D'Holbach's view of God see Damiron, Id. p. 155, &c.; Buckle, i. 787, note. The Système de la Nature is partly analysed and criticised in Brougham's Discourse on Natural Theology, pp. 232-47. It comprised two volumes, and is followed by a volume containing three small treatises relating to the natural principles of morals, and social philosophy. The work was refuted by Bergier (1771).

557.

Partie 1ere ch. iii. and iv.

Part ii. ch. vii.

Part ii. ch. xi.

Part i. ch. xiii.

Part ii. ch. i.

Id. ch. iv. and v.

Damiron discuses, in addition to the writers already named, two or three others, viz., Naigeon, Sylv. Marechal, and De la Lande, whose names are not introduced here into the text.

564.

On Rousseau see Villemain ii. leçon (23-24); Brougham's life of him in Men of Letters; Bartholmess, i. 233-270; Henke, vi. 232, especially p. 253, which refers to his theology; Schlosser, i. 4. § 4, and ii. § 2; St. Marc Girardin on the Emile in Rev. des Deux Mondes, Dec. 1854; and an article, too favourably written, but full of information, in the Westminster Review, Oct. 1859, which has been of much use for this lecture.

565.

The chief facts of Rousseau's life are these:—Born 1712; came to Paris, 1741; wrote Sur les Sciences et les Arts, 1750; L'inegalité parmi les hommes, 1753; lived in the Paris coteries, 1754-60; wrote Nouvelle Heloise, 1760; Le Contrat Social, 1761, and Emile; an exile in Switzerland 1762, where he wrote Lettres de la Montagne; accompanied Hume to England 1776; wrote his Confessions; returned to the Continent 1767; died 1770.

566.

There are some good remarks on this theory in the article in the Westminster Review before quoted, the substance of which is to show that Rousseau's doctrine was false in its method and in its tendencies. It marked the stage of inquiry, indicative of the last part of the last century, when men, ignoring the teaching of history, strove to solve problems by means of abstract speculations; the attempt to study the origin of phenomena instead of the facts of their progressive manifestation. The social contract is nothing but the description of the collective development to which society tends. The scheme was visionary: but, as a protest against unjust monopolies which existed in that age, it woke up a response in society (cfr. Mill on Liberty, p. 47-50); and in its tendency it made Rousseau the precursor of the French revolution; but in typifying that movement it represented only its transient aspect of subversive energy, not its work of political reformation.

567.

Emile, b. iv. (See Œuvres, vol. iv. p. 14-119, ed. Paris, 1823, by Musset-Pathay.)

568.

Id. p. 17-20.

569.

Id. p. 22-30.

570.

Emile, p. 33: “Si la matière mue me montre une volonté, la matière mue, selon de certaines lois me montre une intelligence. C'est mon second article de foi.”

P. 34, 36.

P. 40-49.

P. 50-53.

P. 57-75.

P. 83-86.

P. 75-119.

P. 86, &c.

P. 86.

Emile, pp. 105-107.

The comparison of the statements of the Confessions with fragments of Rousseau lately published, shows that many statements which they contain in reference to other persons is false. The statement in the text is made in deference to the opinion latterly stated (e.g. in Heine's Allemagne), that there is a general air of romance pervading the work. If the statements in reference to himself are untrue, the narrative is only a greater proof of the immorality of the author. The supposition however seems groundless. The defender of Rousseau, G. H. Morin (Essai, 1851), does not exculpate his author by impeaching the historical truthfulness of the Confessions.

581.

The high moral standard is not of course seen in the Confessions, which show Rousseau to have been the incarnation of selfishness, and much worse than most of the other unbelievers, but is exhibited in the Emile. The fact that the author of the latter work could write the former is a sad example of a man knowing, like the ancient heathens, how to do good and doing it not.

582.

Henke (vi. p. 267 seq.) draws out the comparison of Voltaire with Rousseau in an excellent manner. Coleridge (Friend, vol. i. 165-186) has given a comparison of Voltaire with Erasmus, and of Rousseau with Luther.

583.

See Villemain, i. 14, 15., ii. 22; Schlosser, i. 2. § 2., 4. § 3, and ii. 2. § 2.

584.

See Buckle, i. (772-783).

585.

Compare Macaulay's remarks in reference to the Revolution, Essays (ed. 8vo. 1843), ii. 215, &c.

586.

For the causes of the revolution compare the statements of Alison, Hist. of Europe, i. ch. ii. and iii., and Buckle, i. (836-850).

587.

On the incipient hostility to religion in the National Assembly, see Alison, vol. ii. ch. v. § 46, Id. § 32-35. On the full development of it in the Convention, see Id. iv. ch. xiv. § (45-48).

588.

Nov. 9.

589.

Concerning this act of Robespierre, see Alison, iv. ch. xv. § 23, 24, 27.

590.

On the state of religion under the Directory, see Alison, vol. v. ch. xix. § 41, and vol. vi, ch. xxiv. § 19.

591.

See M. Gregoire's Histoire de la Théophilanthropie, forming part of his Histoire des Sectes Relig., and the notice of it in the Quarterly Review, No. 56. Also the references in Alison, vi. ch. xxiv. § 19; Staüdlin, Geschichte des Rationalismus und Supernat. 1826, (44-54.)

592.

On the state under Napoleon, see Alison, viii. ch. xxxv. § 1, and 30-40.

593.

April 11, 1802.

594.

See Morell, Hist, of Phil. vol. i. ch. iv. § 2.

595.

Les Ruines ou Meditations sur les Revolutions des Empires (1791.) A similar view of religion is taken in Dupuis, Origine de tous les Cultes, 1795.

Ch. ii.

Ch. iii.

Ch. v.

Ch. vii-xii.

Ch. xv.

Ch. xix.

Ch. xx. &c.

Ch. xxii. p. 218.

P. 226.

P. 232.

P. 238.

P. 255.

P. 262.

P. 268.

P. 274.

P. 277.

P. 285.

P. 286.

P. 287.

P. 288.

Ch. xxiv. p. 320.

Such as the idea of the plurality of worlds suggested by Fontenelle.

618.

The apologetic literature of this period of the French church is not powerful. See Buckle, i. 692, note; and Alison, i. 2. § 62.

619.

The influence on Germany will be seen in Lect. VI.

620.

In Lect. IV.

621.

Gibbon (1737-1794). See Autobiography (Milman's edition 1839), ch. iii. p. 73, &c.

622.

Cfr. some remarks (p. 27, 28,) in an instructive paper on Gibbon in the National Review, No. 3, on the relation of his method and style to his age.

623.

Milman and Guizot.

624.

The first of these is explained by Dr. Milman, Preface to edition of Gibbon, p. 10, and the article in the Quarterly Review, No. 100.

625.

Cfr. Mackintosh (Life, i. 244), quoted by Milman in his edition of Gibbon, c. xv. first note.

626.

The remarks which follow are partly taken from the above-named article in the National Review (pp. 33-36). Nearly the same thing is said by Miss Hennell in the fifth Baillie Prize Essay on the early Christian anticipation of the end of the world, 1860, a treatise which in other respects is very objectionable.

627.

Bp. Watson's Apology for Christianity was a reply to Gibbon, 1776. Dean Milman's notes to chapters xv. and xvi. of Gibbon are an excellent comment and criticism.

628.

Byron, Childe Harold, iii. 105-108.

629.

Paine (1737-1809), published Rights of Man, 1790; Age of Reason, 1794. See the life by Cheetham, 1809, and Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary. Bp. Watson's Apology for the Bible was a reply to Paine (1796).

630.

Anacharsis Clootz.

631.

The danger arising from republican clubs is described in Alison, iv. ch. xvi. § 6; and in W. Hamilton Reed's Rise and Dissolution of Infidel Societies in the Metropolis, 1800. See also the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords on them, 1801. The works of Godwin on Political Justice, 1793, and of Mary Woolstencraft on the Rights of Women, are generally adduced as illustrations of the prevalence of French political principles at that time in England.

632.

Part i. pp. 3-19, and part ii. pp. 8-83.

633.

Part i. pp. 3, 4; 21-50; part ii. pp. 83-93.

634.

P. 44.

635.

Part ii. pp. 10-83.

636.

Part i. pp. 37-44. This difficulty, first suggested by Fontenelle, is met in the eloquent Astronomical Discourses (1822) of Chalmers. The controversy has been newly opened by the brilliant essay on the Plurality of Worlds (1853), supposed to be by Dr. Whewell, and pursued by Dr. Brewster (More Worlds than One), Professor Baden Powell (Essays on the Order of Nature), and by Professor H. S. Smith in the Oxford Essays, 1855.

637.

Page 20.

638.

Part i. pp. 3, 4; p. 50.

639.

Robert Owen (1771-1858). About the year 1800 he became known in connexion with schemes of industrial reform at the Lanark mills; and from 1813-19 conducted them as a social experiment to carry out his views. He attempted also to spread his opinions in America. After his return to England, by means of lectures and his work, The New Moral World, he taught them in the manufacturing towns; and they were widely spread about the time of the Chartist movement (1839-41). His opinions may be learned from his Essays on the Formation of Character (1818), which explain his Lanark system; and especially his New Moral World, published about 1839. His religious opinions may be gathered from the Debate on the Evidences and on Society with A. Campbell, 1839. His autobiography was published in 1857, and a review of his philosophy by W. L. Sargeant, 1860. An article also related to him in the Westminster Review for Oct. 1860. See also Morell's History of Philosophy, i. 386 seq. Mr. R. Dale Owen, son of the above, published several deist tracts in America, from about 1840-44.

640.

It has been considered unnecessary to name three other unimportant writers, Burgh, Farmer, a writer on the subject of Demoniacs, and Carlisle, who was prosecuted in 1830.

641.

Byron (1788-1824). The Vision of Judgment, written in 1821, has been already referred to in Lecture III. as a vehicle for sceptical banter. For a brief comparison between the scepticism of Byron and Shelley, see remarks in the Westminster Review, April 1841, by Mr. G. H. Lewes.

642.

Bacon, Nov. Org. Aph. 52, 53.

643.

Shelley (1792-1822). The materials are abundant for understanding the character and works of Shelley, in biographies both friendly and hostile. The second edition of the Shelley Memorials, by lady Shelley, 1859, contains an essay on Christianity by him. Several important articles in Reviews have been published in reference to him, among which it is desirable to call attention to the one in the National Review, No. 6, Oct. 1856, which contains a very instructive analysis of his mental and moral character. It has been used in the few remarks which follow.

644.

The pamphlet appears to have been an anonymous statement of the weakness of the argument for the existence of deity; negative rather than positive. See the account of the transaction and its results in T. J. Hogg's Life of Shelley, 1858, vol. i. pp. (269-286).

645.

E.g. in the Ode to Liberty (§ 15 and 16), written in 1820.

646.

In the Adonais, § 49-51. For Shelley's own cremation and burial, see the Memorials by lady Shelley, p. 201.

647.

This is well put in the Review above quoted, (p. 356).

648.

The Reviewer thinks that the first stage was in tone like Lucretius, i.e. Epicureanism. The second and third are described here in the text. The Queen Mab (end of the first division) expressed the first stage; the first speech of Ahasuerus in the Hellas is a specimen of the second; and the Adonais (43 and 52) of the third.

649.

This contrast however in the evidences, though true in a general way, must not be pressed so as to imply an absolutely defined line of chronological separation between the two classes of evidence.

650.

Robert Boyle died in 1692, and founded the lecture by his last will. The lectures commenced in the same year. Bampton's were founded in 1751; but none delivered till 1780. Hulse died in 1790; but the lectures did not commence till 1820. A list of the lectures delivered in each series may be found in Darling's Cyclopædia Bibliographica.

651.

The remarks on evidence in Nos. 73 and 84 of the Tracts for the Times, and the tone assumed by the ultramontane writers of France, are instances of the undervaluing evidences from the former causes. The deist literature of the last century, and the writings of Carlyle in the present, are instances of that which arises from the latter.

652.

I.e. they belong essentially to the protestant stand-point in theology.

653.

See above, p. 160. The view which Blunt took of the evidences is given in his Essays, p. 133, reprinted from the Quarterly Review, April 1828.

654.

The controversy raised by the Tübingen school refers to the date of books of the New Testament which testify to facts and doctrines. Supposing this primary question settled in favour of our commonly received view, then the further question follows concerning the honesty and opportunity of information of the narrators; and it is here that the arguments of Lyttleton, Lardner, and Paley, in the last century, find their proper place. See below, Lect. VIII.

655.

John iv. 37, 38, 36.

656.

On Rationalism see Note 21 at the end of this volume.

657.

The sources for the knowledge of this period are briefly stated in the Preface to these lectures.

658.

See p. 9, 99. Hundeshagen (Der Deutsche Prot. § 13) insists on the prime importance of the spiritual element as the moving force in the Reformation.

659.

Melancthon and Camerarius, Calvin and Beza, represent the union of learning with theology; the second Scaliger, the Stephenses, Casaubon, and others, are instances of the great lay scholars.

660.

The date of the former is 1577; of the latter 1618. These are named as the events from which the theology in the Lutheran and Calvinistic churches respectively became fixed. Buddeus (Isagoge, p. 239) dates it rather from the confession of Ratisbon, 1601. On this dogmatic period see Der Deutsche Prot. § 9; Hagenbach's Dogmengesch. § 216-18; Amand Saintes' Critical History of Rationalism (transl.) ch. v. and vi; Pusey's Historical Inquiry, part i. pp. (1-52), part ii. ch. viii. and ix. (1830). It was this period which produced the various books of Loci Communes Theologici. The only exception to this scholastic spirit was Calixt. and the school of Helmstadt, which in tone was like the school of Saumur, (Cameron, Amyrauld, and Placæus,) or like Baxter, the controversies connected with which prove the rule. On it see Schröckh, Christliche Kirchengeschichte seit der Reformation (1804), viii. 243 seq. On the theologians of this period see Weismann, Introd. in Memorabilia Eccles. Hist. (1718), p. 919 seq.

661.

This view of inspiration is stated in Quenstedt's Syst. Theol., and Calov's Syst. Theol. i. 554 seq., about the end of the seventeenth century. Dr. Pusey (part i. 140) refers to passages of Semler's Lebens-Beschreibung illustrative of these opinions in the German church of that period. On the similar controversy which existed in the French protestant church see note above, p. 113. This is only one instance among many of the close analogy which exists in the development of thought between the reformed churches in different lands.

662.

These are the chief influences which the German writers enumerate. See Tholuck ii. § 2-5, Kahnis, History of German Protest. (transl. 1856) i. 1.

663.

On Leibnitz and his system see Tennemann, Geschichte xi. 93 seq.; Ritter's Christliche Phil. viii. 47 seq.; Renouvier, Phil. Mod. (278-90); and especially Maine de Biran's Life of Leibnitz in the Biographie Universelle. Also Morell's History of Philosophy, i. 220, and H. Rogers's Essays (Essay on Leibnitz,) reprinted from the Edinburgh Review, July 1846.

664.

On these canons see Sir W. Hamilton's Lectures on Logic, vol. i. lect. vi.; Mansel's Prolegomena, ch. vi.; and Mills's Logic, vol. ii. b. v. ch. iii. § 5.

665.

Wolff, 1679-1754. Professor of Philosophy at Halle; in 1723 expelled; restored in 1741; Lange and Buddeus were his great opponents (see Hagenbach's Dogmengesch. § 274). His philosophy consisted of an attempt to deduce à priori a system of (1) cosmology, (2) psychology, (3) natural theology. The latter relates to God, His attributes in Himself and in creation. See some remarks by Mr. Mansel on his scheme (art. Metaphysic. Encycl. Brit., 8vo. ed. p. 603). On his philosophy see Ritter, Christ. Phil. vii. b. x. ch. i.; Tennemann's Manual, § (363-5); Morell, i. 228; Rosenkrantz, Gesch. der Kantischen Schule, b. i. part iii. ch. i. His religious opinions are found in the Theol. Nat. 1736, and Philos. Moralis, 1750, and in his Vernuenftige Gedanken von Gott. 1747 (p. 604). See on them Henke, Kirchengesch. viii. § 3; Mangel's Bampton Lectures, note 3. And on the effects of his philosophy, and the state of theology in Germany at the time of its influence, see Tholuck's Vermischte Schriften, ii. § 2 and 1.

666.

In 1723, in consequence of the petition from the pietist professors, Frederick I, deposed Wolff. See Kahnis (Engl. Transl.) p. 114.

667.

In reference to the introduction of Wolff's philosophy, the reference to Tholuck has been already given. See also Schröch's Gesch. viii. 26; Lechler, 448; Amand Saintes' Critical History of Rationalism, i. ch. ix.; Hagenbach's Dogmengesch. § 274; Kahnis, p. 110. Kahnis (115) names Baumgarten, Canz, and Toellner, as Wolff's pupils. Mosheim and the Walches were too exclusively literary to be affected by the new philosophy. Canz of Tübingen was the first to apply the system to doctrinal theology (1728). See Pusey, part i. 116.

668.

Locke's philosophy in a distorted form was introduced by the French philosophers who lived at the court of Frederick II.

669.

On the introduction of English deism, see Tholuck, § 3. A few only of the deist writings were translated, (e.g. Tindal by Schmidt in 1741,) but very many of the replies; which proves how much attention they excited. See the list in Lechler, p. 447. Up to 1760 no fewer than 106 answers had been written to Tindal alone. Kortholt, in his work De Tribus Impostoribus, (viz. Herbert, Hobbes, Spinoza,) 1680, was the first to notice English deism. The appeal to reason in these replies had the same effect as that noticed in the philosophy of Wolff.

670.

For Maupertuis see Biographie Universelle. The others have been named in the notes to Lect. V.

671.

See Tholuck, § 4 and 5. He considers that the French literature, with the exception of Bayle, did not affect the Germans, on account of its shallowness; but doubtless it did so indirectly.

672.

This division does not essentially differ from the threefold one adopted by Kahnis, into the illumination period, that of the renovation, and of the church renovating itself.

673.

We place the limit at 1810, because it is the date of the foundation of the university of Berlin, which was the home of the reaction.

674.

This date marks the spread of the Kantian philosophy, as will be shown below.

675.

There were thus three chief phases within the church; the dogmatic at Leipsic, the critical at Göttingen, the pietistic eclecticism of Semler at Halle. If to this we add the pietism which still reigned at Tübingen, as seen in Pfaff, &c., we have the condition of the four universities which were at that time the chief centres of intellectual activity in Germany.

676.

Lessing, along with Nicholai, conducted the Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek from 1765.

677.

On the purpose and nature of these institutions, which arose at Dessau about 1774, see Schlosser, i. 5, 3; ii. 3, 2; Kahnis, p. 47. On Basedow (1724-1790), see Rose on Rationalism, p. 66, note (second edition), and Schröch, viii. 52.

678.

J. A. Ernesti (1707-1781), was author of Inst. Interpret. Nov. Test. 1761 (translated by bishop Terrot). His chief labours were the editions of several classical authors, among which the most valuable was Cicero. See Schlosser, ii. 187; Kahnis, 120; Pusey, 132; Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. ii. The Rosenmüllers (the father, J. G. Rosenmüller, on the New Testament; the son, E. F. Rosenmüller the antiquarian on the Old,) manifest much the same spirit as Ernesti.

679.

Joh. Dav. Michaelis (1716-1791). His chief works were, Gruend-liche Erklaerung des Mosaischen Rechts, and the Einleitung in die Schrift, des Neuen Bundes. The former handled the Hebrew legislation in a free spirit. The latter work was translated by bishop Marsh, and led to the controversy about the composition of the Gospels, to which allusion will be made in the notes of Lecture VII. See Kahnis, p. 121; Henke, viii. part ii. § 2. Jerusalem and Spalding manifest the same spirit as Michaelis.

680.

Semler (1725-1791), Professor at Halle. His Lebens-beschreibung, published 1781, is the great source for studying his mental development and the history of his times. His works are numerous, consisting chiefly of Commentaries and Ecclesiastical History. He was one of the first to open up the study of the history of doctrine (dogmengeschichte). The works which exhibit his rationalism are chiefly the Frei Untersuchen des Canons, 1711; Versuch einer freiern lehrart, 1777; Introduction to Baumgarten's Dogmatik; Institutiones ad Doctrinam Christianam liberaliter docendam, 1774. His character is discussed at length in Tholuck. § 6; Pusey, 138, &c.; Schlosser, ii. 187; Am. Saintes, b. ii. ch. ii. and iii. On the successors of the writers recently named, see Am. Saintes, b. ii, ch. iv.

681.

In the work on the Canon named in the last note.

682.

See the historic sketch of interpretation given in Planck's Introduction to Sacred Philology, (English translation, 168-186). Interesting information is supplied in Credner's article Interpretation in Kitto's Biblical Encyclopædia; J. J. Conybeare's Bampton Lecture for 1824 on the Secondary Interpretation of Scripture; Dr. S. Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics (5-7); and an article in the North British Review for August 1855 on the Alexandrian school.

683.

These tendencies must be considered only to express the average. Thus the school of Antioch, of which Theodore of Mopsuestia is a type, leaned to the grammatical mode; (see some remarks on it in Neander's Church History, vol. iv. init. Germ. ed.; vol. iii. fin. Engl. Tr.) In the middle ages the Franciscans showed an inclination to the mystical or allegorical; and the typical system of the Miracle Plays and of the Biblia Pauperum illustrates the allegorical spirit of those times.

684.

The allegorical is seen in the school of Cocceius (1603-1669) in the Dutch church. The dogmatic has been alluded to above.

685.

The system is called variously, in works of Hermeneutics, συγκατάβασις, condescensio, demissio, obsequium. It is developed in Semler's Prolegomena to some of St. Paul's Epistles; in the Vorbereitung zur Theol. Hermeneutik, 1762; and in the Apparatus ad lib. Nov. Text. interpr. 1767. Tholuck quotes many instances of it in reference to him (ii. 61). Concerning the subject see Planck's Introduction to Sacred Philology, (E. T.) 152-168; Wegscheider, Inst. Theol. § 25; Bretschneider, Hist. Dogm. Auslegung des N. T. 1806. A list of foreign works in reference to it is given at the end of the article Accommodation, in Kitto's Biblical Encyclopædia. For a criticism on it see J. J. Conybeare's Bampton Lecture for 1824. (Lect. VII.)

686.

Mark x. 5.

687.

E.g. by Kidder in his Testimony of the Messias, 1694; Nicholls, Conference with a Theist, 1733; and by Sykes, in several works from about 1720-40.

688.

Dr. Pusey speaks (Inquiry, p. 139, n.) of two works by Semler on Demons, (of which I have seen only the second, 1779,) the first directed against the belief in the occurrence of possessions in the present day; the second to show that some of the Greek words descriptive of such phenomena in the New Testament need not necessarily imply superhuman agency.

689.

Because it seemed to involve the notion of dissimulation on the part of the scripture writers, or even of the divine Being.

690.

Introd. ad Doctr. Christianam, b. i. See Am. Saintes, p. 107.

691.

E.g. The Wolfenbüttel Fragments. See Am. Saintes, p. 86, and Niemeyer's Letzte Aeusserungen ueber religioese Gegenstaende zwei Tage vor seinem Tode, which he quotes.

692.

His doctrinal views are seen in the Lebens-beschreibung, part ii. p. 220, &c.

693.

Lessing (1729-1781). In 1754 he joined Nicholai and Mendelssohn in literary criticism; in 1757, in the Bibliothek der Schönen Wissenschaften; and in 1765, in the Allgem. Deutsche Biblioth. An account of his life and literary character may be seen in the Foreign Quarterly Review (No. 50) for 1840, and an able criticism on him by C. Dollfus in the Revue Germanique for 1860 (vol. ix.). Consult also Menzel's Deutsch. Litt. iii. 291, &c.; Metcalfe's work based on Vilmar, p. 400 seq. A separate study of his theological opinions was made by C. Schwartz in 1854, entitled Lessing als Theolog, especially c. iv.; see also Bartholmess, b. ii. ch. ii.

694.

Published in 1766.

695.

H. S. Reimarus (1694-1768). See Schlosser, ii. 26, &c., and the article Reimarus in the Conversations Lexicon.

696.

See Note 29 at the end of this volume.

697.

The Fragments are here named according to the order of their original publication; not that in which they are usually printed, as, e.g. in the Berlin edition, 1835.

698.

Compare Strauss's description of them in his Leben Jesu, Introd. § 5. Lessing's own object in their publication is expressed in the concluding pages of his edition of them.

699.

The chief opposition arose from Göze, a pastor of Hamburg, who attacked Lessing even before the last and most obnoxious fragment was published; but both Semler and Jerusalem also wrote against him. See Boden's Lessing und Göze, Ein Beitrag zur Lit. und Kirchengesch. des 18 Jahrh. 1862; also the references given at the end of Note 29 (p. 427); especially Hagenbach's Dogmengesch. § 275, note.

700.

See the note on p. 87.

701.

Die Erziehung des menschlichen Geschlechts, lately partially translated into English. It conveyed the thoughts suggested by the perusal of some apologies for religion.

702.

The theologians Steinbart and Teller represented a similar spirit.

703.

On Edelmann, who died 1767, see Kahnis, p. 126; and on Bahrdt (1741-92), Id. pp. 136-145; and Schlosser, ii. 211. The life of Bahrdt is a sad subject for study. Kahnis (p. 125 seq.) enumerates other deists, some of them earlier than those whom we are now considering, e.g. Knuzen, Dippel (1673-1734).

704.

See the reference above, p. 219.

705.

The contrast of the English, French, and German periods of illuminism is well drawn out by Kuno Fischer (Bacon, ch. xi. 2, 3, and xiii. 3). I have been unable to discover positively whether the term in its first use meant merely Renaissance (cfr. the Italian term illuminati), or whether it meant the philosophy which makes its appeal to common sense, being connected with the Cartesian principle, wahr ist, was klar ist. The former appears almost certain; but some of the German writers seem to favour the latter. On its nature, see Kahnis, p. 61-63.

706.

A very interesting article on Weimar and its celebrities appeared in the Westminster Review for April 1859. The illustration about the court of Ferrara, just below, is taken from it. Mr. G. H. Lewes, in his Life of Goethe, gives incidentally sketches of the intellectual and moral influence of the court of Weimar.

707.

Alfonso d'Este reigned from 1505-34. He was the husband of Lucrezia Borgia.

708.

i.e. from about 1790 to 1810.

709.

Kant's great work, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, appeared in 1781, but was not known out of Königsberg until one of his disciples, Schulze in 1784, elucidated it in a separate work. The Jenaische Litertur-Zeitung also favoured it. In 1786 Reinhold became Professor at Jena, and began to teach Kant's system. See Schlosser, vol. ii. p. 182-4.

710.

Herder did not adopt the new philosophy of Kant. His theological writings were rather earlier than 1790. They created a love for the literature of young nations, and for the Hebrew religion, in a literary rather than a spiritual point of view. On Herder's religious influence, see Schlosser, ii. 278, &c.; and the article by Hagenbach in Herzog's Real. Encyclop., also Hagenbach's Gesch. des 18 Jahrh. § 4 and 5; and Quinet's Œuvres, vol. ii.

711.

Kant lived 1724-1804. On his philosophy see Chalybaus, Hist. of Speculative Philosophy (translated 1854); Am. Saintes' Philos. de Kant, 1844; Cousin, Leçons de la Phil. de Kant, 1843. A good account of it also is given in Morell's Hist. of Philosophy, i. 233-63, in R. Vaughan's (sen.) Essays, and in a Lecture by Professor Mansel on the Philosophy of Kant, 1860. See also the references in Tennemann's Manual, § 387-94. In reference to its theological effects, see Am. Saintes' Critical History of Rationalism, ii. 5 and 6; Bartholmess, b. V. and vi. The parts of Kant's writings which are of special importance for ascertaining his theological views are, his work Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, 1793, and his criticism on natural theology in the Kritik der reinen Vernunft, b. ii. div. 3. See Strauss, Leben Jesu, introd. § 7. Staüdlin, Ammon, and Tieftrunk, were Kantist theologians.

712.

In the Kritik der reinen Vernunft above named, which was so called because he strove to analyse the pure reason, before it is defiled by contact with the world through experience.

713.

The categories, the test of the existence of which is necessity and universality.

714.

This appears in his Kritik der practischen Vernunft.

715.

Illuminism is used as the translation of Aufklaerungs-Zeit.

716.

The difference between Wolff and Kant is, that while the former sought a philosophy of religion ontologically, the latter sought it psychologically, by first ascertaining the functions of the mind in reference to religion.

717.

Such as Schleiermacher.

718.

Paulus, 1761-1851; Professor at Jena, and from 1811 at Heidelberg. Some of his works are named below.

719.

K. G. Bretschneider, 1776-1848; General Superintendent at Gotha. A short autobiography was published after his death, which is translated in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1852-3. His best work is the Handbuch der Dogmatik, 1814, 1838. He was the writer of the Probabilia concerning St. John's Gospel, named in Lect. VII.

720.

F. Reinhardt (1753-1812) of Saxony. His supernaturalism was perhaps rather ethical than biblical. (See Kahnis, 187, Am. Saintes, c. viii.) Storr (1746-1805) was Professor at Tübingen. The belief in the supernatural had never died out. A philosophical supernaturalism was seen in Flatt, Planck, Schröch and a truly biblical kind in Knapp. Along with Reinhardt ought perhaps to be reckoned Morus and Döderlein; at a little earlier period Seiler, and a little later Steudel: on this school see Am. Saintes, ch. iv.

721.

i.e. Rationalismus Vulgaris. On Rationalism, see Note 21 (p. 413.) On this particular kind see Kahnis, p. 169. It is distinguished from naturalism chiefly by being connected with the church, and by the opinion that it is the very essence of Christianity. It was represented by Paulus in criticism, Wegscheider in dogma, and Röhr in preaching.

722.

As Woolston, Bolingbroke, and Voltaire. Cfr. Strauss, Leb. Jes. Introd. § 5.

723.

Eichhorn (1752-1827), one of the most learned men of his age. For illustrations see his Einleitung, § 435, and cfr. § 421. The instances cited in the text, from one of his works which the writer could not consult, are quoted from the British Quarterly Review, No. 26; cfr. also Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 6.

724.

In his Exeget. Handb. des Neuen Test. The account will be found by referring to the respective narratives. See also his commentary on the miracle of the tribute money, and of the feeding the multitudes. See Kahnis, pp. (171-6). Eichhorn stopped short when he came to apply his principles to the New Testament. L. Bauer (Hebr. Mythol.), Gabler, Vater, Bertholdt, Von Lengerke, and Von Böhlen, though some of them were affected by later influences, belonged in the main to this rationalist critical school.

725.

The difference of legend and myth is now well known. “Myth is the creation of a fact out of an idea; legend the seeing an idea in a fact.” Strauss, Leb. Jes. Einl. § 10. The myth is purely the work of imagination, the legend has a nucleus of fact.

726.

Henke, 1752-1809, Professor at Helmstädt, is said to have been the first who made use of the term “Bibliolatry” in the preface to his Lineamenta Instit. Fidei Christianæ. He probably however only brought it into use. (The writer remembers to have seen it occur somewhere earlier, but cannot recall the reference.) He was a church historian of great learning, whose works have been frequently used for reference in Lect. V. Kahnis speaks with great respect (p. 177) of his earnestness. For Henke's position as a church historian see a note in the Preface to these Lectures.

727.

Concerning Bretschneider see a preceding note on p. 231. Bretschneider shows in his reply to Mr. Rose, and in his Autobiography, that he was much hurt at being classed with the rationalists. In truth the dogmatic tendency which we are here describing admits, as is shown more fully in Note 21, (p. 413), of a twofold subdivision. (1) “Rationalists” proper, who are pure Socinians, but hardly believe in the supernatural element of revelation: such were Wegscheider and Röhr; also Echermann and C. F. A. Fritsche may be reckoned with the same school (see Kahnis, 177 seq.; Am. Saintes, ch. vii.); and (2) “Rational Supernaturalists,” like Bretschneider, Schott of Jena (1780-1835), and Tzchirner of Leipsic (1778-1828), who believed in a supernatural revelation, but held to the supremacy of reason;—a position not very unlike Locke's in the Reasonableness of Christianity. The tone of opinion changed so much in Germany after 1830, that Bretschneider, who in earlier life had been considered to lean towards orthodoxy as opposed to rationalism, appeared in later life, though really standing still, to side with the rationalists against the reaction which took place in favour of supernaturalism. A volume of sermons, translated by Baker in 1829, called The German Pulpit, contains, along with a few sermons of more spiritual tone, many sermons by preachers of this school. See on this school Am. Saintes, ch. viii. Mr. Rose also has collected many facts in reference to this part of the subject; also Staüdlin in his Gesch. des Rat. und Supernat., and P. A. Stapfer (Arch. du Christianisme, 1824), quoted by Rose (second edition).

728.

J. F. Röhr (1777-1848), Superintendent at Weimar; noted as a preacher. His Historical Geography of Palestine has been translated.

729.

Wegscheider (1771-1848); Professor at Halle. His chief work is Inst. Theol. Chr. Dogmat. 1813.

730.

Hundeshagen calls Kant a second Moses, on account of the moral revolution which his teaching effected.

731.

i.e. Kant, Jacobi, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel; on whom see Morell, ii. ch. v. § 2, and Chalybaüs, History of Speculative Philosophy.

732.

J. G. Fichte (1762-1814); Professor at Jena; deprived for the supposed atheistic tendency of his philosophy (1799); afterwards Professor at Berlin. His great work is his Wissenschafts-lehre, 1794. He was the author of the celebrated patriotic addresses to the German people. The educational institutions of Pestalozzi were founded on Fichte's philosophy, as Basedow's on Rousseau. See Kalnis, p. 216.

733.

Jacobi (1743-1819); President of the academy of sciences at Munich.

734.

On Fichte see Chalybaüs, ch, vi. and vii.; Tennemann, Manual § 400-5; Morell, ii. p. 89-122; Lewes, History of Philosophy; Mansel's art. on Metaphysics in Encycl. Britan. p. 607. On Jacobi see Chalybaüs, ch. iii.; Tennemann, § 415; Morell, ii. 402; Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. xiii.

735.

This atheistic corollary is not deducible from Berkeley's system, and was not designed by Fichte.

736.

See Chalybaüs, ch. viii.; and Morell, ii. 118.

737.

Schelling (1774-1854), Professor at Munich and Berlin. See Chalybaüs, ch. ix-xii.; Tennemann, § 406-11; Morell, ii. 122-161; Bartholmess, Hist. Crit. des Doctr. Relig. b. ix.

738.

1770-1831. See Lect. VII.

739.

See some remarks on this point in Mr. Mansel's Lecture on the Philosophy of Kant.

740.

Lect. VII.

741.

The Romantic school included L. F. Stolberg, the Schlegels, Tieck, Novalis (Hardenberg), Fouqué. See Kahnis, p. 202; Morell, ii. 421; Vilmar. (English translation), p. 500 seq.; Carlyle's Essay on Novalis (Misc. Works, vol. ii.); and Bartholmess, ii. b. xi.

742.

Herder, 1744-1803. See a previous note. His most interesting works were, the Spirit of Hebrew Poetry (translated 1802), and the Philosophy of History (translated 1800).

743.

The influence of the movement extended into the Roman catholic church; and Hermes, Moehler, and Goerres, were affected by it. Hermes (1775-1831) was Professor at Bonn; and, endeavouring to find a philosophy for Romish doctrines, was opposed by his own church. Moehler, 1796-1838, author of the Symbolik, which revived the controversy with Protestantism, and was answered by the most learned Protestant theologians, has been pronounced (by Schaff) to be the ablest Romish theologian since Bellarmine and Bossuet. Goerres (1776-1848), a mystic writer in Bavaria. See Am. Saintes, c. xx.; and on Goerres see Quinet, Œuvr. vi. ch. vii.

744.

See Hundeshagen, Der Deutsch Prot. § 12; Kahnis, p. 223.

745.

This patriotism still lives in the poetry of Koerner.

746.

This allusion is used by Kahnis (p. 220). He also (p. 221) refers the great outburst of historic study which followed, to the historic sense then awakened.

747.

Harms (1778-1855). See Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. ix; Kahnis, p. 223 seq., where some of Harms's Theses are given. They are founded on the doctrinal spirit of the sixteenth century, and are full of force and humour. Some of them are directed against rationalism; others are the asseveration of high Lutheran tenets. The following are specimens: No. 3. “With the idea of a progressive reformation, in the manner in which it is at present understood, Lutheranism will be reformed back into heathenism.” No. 21. “In the sixteenth century the pardon of sins cost money after all; in the nineteenth it may be had without money, for people help themselves to it.” See Pelt in Herzog's Real. Encyclop. sub voc.

748.

On this second period, see Schwarz's Geschichte der Neuesten Theologie, b. i.; and for brief notices of the whole of the German movement, see Hagenbach's Dogmengeschichte (period 5).

749.

It has been more recently, for this reason, called the Mediation-Theology (Vermittellungs-Theologie).

750.

Schleiermacher (1768-1834). His Leben in Briefen (1858) has been recently translated. His philosophical and religious stand-point is well discussed, and some portions of his works analysed, in the Rev. R. A. Vaughan's Essays and Remains (reprinted from the British Quarterly Review, No. 18). A brief explanation of his philosophy is seen in Morell's History of Philosophy, ii. 433, and Julius Scheller's Vorlesungen über Schleiermacher, 1844. His religious views are criticised, with extracts, in Amand Saintes, part ii. ch. xiv-xvi; Kahnis, 204 seq.; Lücke, Stud. und Krit. 1834, H. 4. The facts of his life are given in the Westm. Rev. for July, 1861.

751.

He joined F. Schlegel in the plan of translation, and continued it after Schlegel had retired from it. He did not however complete the whole of Plato. The parts finished were published at intervals from 1804-27. The introductions to the dialogues are valuable.

752.

J. H. Jung Stilling (1740-1817), a distinguished oculist in Westphalia, who employed himself in acts of religious usefulness. His works were published in 1835. His Autobiography, written by desire of Goethe, has been translated. See an article on him in the Foreign Quarterly Review; vol. xxi.

753.

Oberlin (1740-1826), the interesting pastor of the Vosges mountains, who united efforts for civilization with piety, and the temporal improvement of his people with the spiritual. His memoir has been written in English. To the same class of saintly men about the end of the last century belonged Hamann, Lavater, and Claudius. See Kahnis, p. 80 seq.

754.

Mr. R. A. Vaughan, in the Essay above cited, compares Schleiermacher with Hugo St. Victor (on whom see Ritter, Chr. Phil. viii. 9. 2). The analogy with Origen is close. Speaking technically, the difference would be, that the Neo-Platonic school, to which Origen belonged, was rather one of “Objective Idealism” like Schelling; Schleiermacher's of “Subjective Idealism” like Fichte.

755.

The Rationalist and Socinian element was taught by Wegscheider.

756.

In 1802.

757.

Halle was taken by the French in 1806; the university of Berlin was founded in 1810.

758.

He died in 1834.

759.

See note 31 (p. 428).

760.

Neander's witness to the effect produced by them is quoted in Kahnis, p. 208.

761.

Cfr. Glaubenslehre, § 3-6.

762.

Selbst bewuszt-seyn.

763.

Schleiermacher's views are rarely put with sharpness of form; and as they varied in the manner shown in Note 31, it is hardly possible to lay down a fixed account of his system. The following remarks are rather the spirit of his Glaubenslehre than an analysis of it. His psychological views are seen in § 1-4 of that treatise (ed. 1842); but the Reden, pp. 58, 59, and the introduction by his pupil Schweizer to the Entwurf eines systems der sittenlehre, 1835, besides his posthumous philosophical works, ought also to be consulted. His psychological views are nearly reproduced in Morell's Philosophy of Religion, ch. iii.

764.

§ 7-10; and also § 11-14.

765.

§ 129-131.

766.

His views on sin are given § 65-85; and on the work of Christ, § 100-105.

767.

§ 68.

768.

§ 104.

769.

The mode of reconciliation is treated in § 106-112, and indirectly in the Weihnachtsfeier. Mr. Vaughan compares it with Osiander's view in the sixteenth century.

770.

His views may be seen in § 50-56, especially § 54. His system in earlier life almost resembled pantheism, as in his praise of Spinoza. See Reden, p. 471.

771.

§ 170-172.

772.

The person of Christ is discussed § 93-99. Vaughan compares the view with that of Justin Martyr. See also Strauss's Leben Jesu, § 148.

773.

§ 121-125.

774.

See Note 24 (p. 421).

775.

His critical is much less important than his philosophical position. The same spirit of seriousness marks his writings in this department. Two of his chief critical works are, his Ueber den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus, 1807, and Ueber die Schriften des Lukes, ein Kritischer Versuch, 1817, translated into English 1825. The reasons given for his appreciation of the Gospel of St. John in the Weihnachtsfeier, also in his posthumous work, Hermeneutik und Kritik, 1838, and his Einleitung ins Neue Test. 1845, ought also to be taken into account in estimating his exegetical views.

776.

The above remarks on Schleiermacher will perhaps be considered severe by those who know his works, and will be regarded as putting the worst face on his system. The criticism however of the late Mr. Vaughan, who deeply appreciated Schleiermacher, and had devoted much patient study to his works, and who viewed him from the stand-point of English orthodoxy, coincides with the above estimate of him. A criticism on Schleiermacher from Bretschneider's point of view may be seen in his Dogmatik, i. p. 93-115.

777.

Especially at Bonn, which was founded in 1818.

778.

The following theologians were influenced chiefly by the spirit of Schleiermacher: Tholuck, professor at Halle, author of various well-known works, (see the expression of his views in the tract, the Guido and Julius, or true Consecration of the Doubter, in reply to De Wette's Theodor); Twesten, successor of Schleiermacher at Berlin, author of the well-known Dogmatik; H. Olshausen, the commentator; Nitzch, author of the Handbook of Doctrine (translated); Julius Müller, writer of the able work on the Nature of Sin; Ullmann, editor of the Studien und Kritiken, the organ of the party. Also Sach, Stier, Tittmann, Umbreit, Ebrart, Hagenbach, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hundeshagen, Bleek, Lücke, Lange, belong to the same party; and Gieseler also in the main. Their doctrine is called the Deutsche Theologie. Bunsen must also perhaps be classed with them, though much freer and less biblical than the others. The writings of the late archdeacon Hare are perhaps no inapt English parallel to the tone of these teachers.

779.

More especially Moehler, named above (p. 239, note), was influenced. The modern Catholic theologians are to be treated in the forthcoming (3rd) edition of C. Schwarz's Gesch. der Neuesten Theologie.

780.

For Neander's life and character as a theologian and church historian, see the interesting particulars gathered in the British Quarterly Review, No. 24, for Nov. 1850, and in the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. viii. Neander (1789-1850) was a Jew by birth. About 1805 he embraced Christianity (his life at this period is seen in his letters to Chamisso); studied at Halle under Schleiermacher 1806; at Göttingen under Planck; was made Professor at Berlin 1812; author of various early monographs; of the Church History, 1825; History of the Planting of the Church, 1832; Life of Christ, 1837. His opinions may be learned from the Preface to the third edition of his Life of Christ, and the Preface to his Church History. On his position as a church historian, see Hagenbach in Studien und Kritiken for 1851.

781.

His views on sin and redemption are chiefly to be gathered from criticisms on the Pauline doctrine in the History of the Planting of the Church (vol. ii.); and on the Christian doctrine in vol. ii. of his Church History.

782.

Introduction to the Life of Christ, § 6.

783.

Preface to Church History (first edition).

784.

On Fries' philosophy see Morell, ii. 418; Tennemann's Manual, § 122. Accepting Kant's categories, he held the existence of an inward faith-principle, which gives an insight into the real nature of things; but only as subjective truths, and as tests of truth. The church historian Hase (see Kahnis, p. 236) is moulded by this philosophy.

785.

Lect. II. p. 61. Similar discussions have arisen with regard to the integrity and purpose of the books of Job, Zechariah, and Isaiah. Particulars of these literary questions will be found in Hengstenberg's articles Job and Isaiah in Kitto's Bibl. Cycl., and in Davidson's Introduction to the Old Testament, in the chapters concerning these books. The classical student need hardly be reminded of the close analogy between these literary investigations in the Hebrew literature and those which were conducted by F. A. Wolf in respect to Homer, and by other scholars in reference to various classical authors.

786.

Lect. VII.

787.

Perhaps the clearest account of the controversy will be found in Michel Nicholas, Etudes Critiques sur la Bible, Essay i. 1862. See also Hengstenberg's Authentie des Pentateuches (Die Gottesnamen im Pentat. i. 181 seq.); Hävernick's Introd. to the Pentateuch (English translation), p. 56, &c.; Keil's Lehrbuch, p. 82, &c.; and Dr. S. Davidson's Introduction to the Old Testament (1862), pp. 1-135.

788.

Conjectures sur les Memoires Originaux du livre de la Genèse, 1753.

789.

See Exodus vi. 3.

790.

The older critics however think that the plural form relates to the plurality of persons in the divine Being.

791.

Jehovah is translated in the English version, the Lord.

792.

Independently of comparative mythology, which is still an hypothesis, there is evidence of the fact in the very derivations constantly offered of words in the Old Testament, as well as in the modern investigations concerning language. Ewald has shown in an interesting manner the means afforded by the Hebrew proper names for gaining a conception of Hebrew life (see his article on Names in Kitto's Bibl. Encycl.); and a similar analysis has recently been applied to the Indo-Germanic languages in Pictet's Les Origines Indo-Européennes, 1859.

793.

It is well known that the book of Psalms is divided, in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, into five books; viz. Psalms i-xli; xlii-lxxii; lxxiii-lxxxix; xc-cvi; cvii-cl; each of them ending with a doxology, which is now inserted in the text of the psalm. In the first book the name Elohim occurs 15 times, and Jehovah 272 times; in the second, Elohim 164 times, and Jehovah 30 times. This computation is stated on the authority of Dr. Donaldson, Christian Orthodoxy.

794.

There are two exceptions, viz. i. 21, xii. 9, which Hengstenberg considers to prove the rule. On this subject see Hengstenberg's Dissertation on Job in Kitto's Bibl. Cyclop. ii. 122, now reprinted in a volume of his Miscellaneous Essays.

795.

De Wette tries to exhibit traces in other books than Genesis, but unsuccessfully. It is in Genesis alone that the difference can be so clearly seen, that, even if the peculiar use had no theological meaning, which not even Hengstenberg denies, it must remain as a literary peculiarity. A list of the passages in Genesis which have been considered by these critics to represent the respective uses of the two names, is given in the learned and reverently written article Genesis, in Smith's Biblical Dictionary, by Mr. J. J. S. Perowne.

796.

The references to these various authors will be found in M. Nicholas, Essay i.

797.

Geschichte des Hebr. Volk. i. 75 seq.

798.

In writing the history of this dispute, as being here viewed only in its literary aspect, it will be seen that my object has been simply to select it, for the purpose of exhibiting the gradual increase of taste as well as of learning shown by the German critics in reference to questions of the “higher criticism.” Concerning the theological aspect of it we can all form an opinion, which would probably be in a great degree condemnatory; but concerning the literary, none but a few eminent Hebrew scholars. Some of the greatest of them, Gesenius, De Wette, Ewald, Hupfeld, Knobel, have given in their adherence to some form of the theory above described. The references to the works of Hengstenberg, Hävernick, and Keil, who have written on the other side, are given above. The rashness of some forms of criticism must not make us abandon a wholesome use of it; and a literary peculiarity such as that described, if it really exist, demands the reverent study of those who wish to learn the mind of the divine Spirit, as it was communicated to the ancient chosen people, or expressed in the written word. Compare McCaul's Essay, Aids to Faith, p. 195.

799.

Tennyson's In Memoriam, § 95.

Matt. v. 6.

Rev. xix. 6

Lect. VI. p. 218.

Hegel, 1770-1831, Professor at Berlin after 1818. The rudiments of his system are in the Phenomenology, written about 1806; the Logic gives the mature form of it about 1816; the Encyclopædia its completion; the two former works being embodied in the latter. For the sources for the study of his system, &c. see Note 35 at the end of this book.

804.

See p. 237.

805.

Schleiermacher sought it in the consciousness of dependence, craving for an infinite object; and regarded Christianity as supplying the means for the perfect harmony of this principle with the opposing one of voluntary power. Hence, the solution of difficulties in religion would be sought in such a system by seeing the adaptation of the Christian scheme to human needs, not in the solution of the mysteries themselves.

806.

Marheinecke (1780-1846), Professor of Theology at Berlin, the author of many works, chiefly on dogmatic theology, of which his Symbolik, 1810, and Dogmatik, 1827, are the most important. See Bretschneider's explanation and criticism on his system (Dogmatik, i. 115-140). Perhaps the name of K. Daub (1765-1836), Professor at Heidelberg, ought also to be added. Originally Hegel's teacher, he adopted his pupil's system. See Kahnis's remarks, p. 244 seq., and Amand Saintes, part ii. ch. xvii. It has been usual to classify the followers of Hegel under the analogy of political parties in foreign parliaments, thus:—in the extreme right, Heinrichs and Goeschel; in the right, Schaller, Erdmann, and Gabler; in the centre, Rosenkranz and Marheinecke; in the left centre, Vatke, Snellmann, and Michelet; in the left, Strauss, Bruno Bauer, and Feuerbach. See Morell, Hist. of Philosophy, ii. 199, 203. Several of these however are philosophers rather than theologians. A simpler classification of the Hegelian theologians is into three parties: the first, Daub and Marheinecke, and more recently Dorner; the second, Chr. Baur and the Tübingen school; the third, Strauss, B. Bauer, and Feuerbach.

807.

See the article by Scherer in the Revue des Deux Mondes, Feb. 1861, p. 841; and on the influence of Hegel see Kahnis, p. 244 seq., and Am. Saintes, P. II. ch. 17; and Bartholmess, b. xii.

808.

See Note 24 (p. 412).

809.

Leben Jesu, 1835.

810.

The account of this controversy may be seen in bishop Marsh's Dissertation, 1807; and a continuation of the history subsequently to his work in the introduction to the Translation of Schleiermacher's Essay on St. Luke, 1825 (by the present Bp. Thirlwall). The controversy is also treated with great learning and reverence by Dr. S. Davidson, Introd. to New Test. i. (373-425). Important references and quotations in regard to it are given in the Appendix to Tregelles' edition of Horne's Introd. 10th ed. vol. iv.; also see Amand Saintes, Hist. p. ii. 12; Renan's Etudes de l'Hist. Relig. (Ess. 3); Hase's Leben Jesu; Quinet's review of Strauss (Œuvres, vol. iii). A series of studies on the subject is in course of publication in the Revue Germ. 1862, by Michel Nicholas.

811.

Wetstein, with Mill, Calmet, and others, regarded St. Mark's Gospel to be the epitome of St. Matthew's. Griesbach and Dr. Townson thought that St. Luke as well as St. Mark had seen the one by St Matthew. A further list may be seen in Tregelles (as above), p. 642; and Davidson (as above).

812.

Michaelis regarded the Greek translator of St. Matthew to have had access to the same Greek document as St. Mark and St. Luke. Semler and Lessing advocated a Hebrew or Syriac original. Eichhorn adopted the theory of an Aramaic original, which was adopted with slight alterations by bishop Marsh. (It was criticised by bishop Randolph, by Mr. Veysie, and in Falconer's Bampton Lectures, 1810.) Schleiermacher regarded the Gospels to be pieced together out of separate documents. Gieseler's hypothesis was put forward in 1818.

813.

Probabilia de Evangel. et Epist. Joannis origine et indole, 1820. The theory suggested was, that it was written in the second century. It was well answered by Schott, Stein, and others. The controversy has been revived in more modern times; the Tübingen school denying the authorship to St. John, Ewald and others, asserting it. The subject is discussed in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, i. 233-313. See also two articles in the National Review, No. 1, July 1855, and No. 9. July 1857.

814.

On the spirit of Kant's philosophy in this respect, see Strauss's own remarks, Leben Jesu, Introd. § 7.

815.

On the contrast of myth and legend there are some good remarks in Strauss, who quotes George's Mythus und Sage for the explanation; also in the Westminster Review for April 1847 (p. 149), an article which, though written in favour of Strauss, gives an instructive account of the object and position of his work. The history of Strauss's work, with its antecedents and consequents, mainly based on Schwarz (b. ii.) and on Scherer, but bearing marks of independent study, is given in Mr. F. C. Cook's Essay on Ideology in the Aids to Faith, 1862. Theodore Parker has given an accurate analysis, and of course a defence, of Strauss (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 231).

816.

The new view of the nature of myths is developed in Max Müller's Essay on Comparative Mythology, Oxford Essays, 1856. See also Note 47 (p. 450).

817.

Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 152. (ii. p. 713.)

818.

§ 1-16. It contains a history of the different explanations of sacred legends among the Greeks; the allegorical systems of the Hebrews (Philo,) and Christians (Origen); the system of the Deists; and the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist; the naturalist mode of Eichhorn and Paulus, and the moral of Kant; lastly, the rise of the mythic, both in reference to the Old and New Testaments. Then the discussion of the possibility of myths in the Gospels, and a description of the evangelical mythus.

§ 1-142.

§ 17-43.

§ 44-110.

§ 111-142.

§ 143-152. The author gives the dogmatic import of the life of Jesus, criticising the Christology of Orthodoxy, of Rationalism, of Schleiermacher, the Symbolic of Kant and De Wette, the Hegelian; and draws his own conclusions.

824.

This idea is well brought out in Renan's critique on Strauss. (Etudes Relig. Essai iii.)

825.

One passage of this kind is quoted by Amand Saintes (p. 263) from Lücke in Stud. und Krit. vol. ii. p. 489.

826.

Edgar Quinet (Œuvres, iii. 316, reprinted from Revue des Deux Mondes, Sept. 1838). His words are, “Un jeune homme plein de candeur, de douceur, de modestie, une âme presque mystique et comme attristée lu bruit qu'elle a causé.” The unaltered view which Strauss now takes of his own work, after the interval of twenty-five years, is given in the Vorrede to his Gespräche von Hütten übersetzt und erlaütert, 1860. It is quoted in the National Review, No. 23, art. 7.

827.

The effect which it produced is described, with details of the answers written, in book ii. of the excellent little work of C. Schwarz already named, Geschichte der Neuesten Theologie, 1856. This part of the work is translated into French, with some useful notes, in the Rev. Germ, vol. ix. parts ii. and iii. See Note 38. The most useful replies are those of Neander and Dorner. Dr. Beard also published a valuable series of papers called Voices of the Church (1845), containing translations of the Essay by Quinet above quoted, of one by A. Cocquerel (père), and others. Dr. Mill's work on The Application of Pantheistic Principles to the Gospels (1840) is intended also as a reply. The Life of Christ, contained in vol. i. of Dean Milman's History of Christianity, also contains important remarks on Strauss's scheme.

828.

P. 241.

829.

Scherer clearly brings out this relation of Strauss's work, in § 5 of the article before quoted.

830.

Accordingly it will be understood that the mention of “the old Tübingen school” of the last century denotes a Pietist school like that of Bengel or Pfaff; the mention of “the new Tübingen school” means one of ultra-rationalism.

831.

The materials for the following sketch have been largely supplied by the work of Schwarz, and partly by an article before cited in the Westminster Review for April 1857. Schwarz, after devoting the first chapter of book ii. to the Straussian contests, devotes the second and first three chapters of book iii. to the history of these four movements.

832.

See Amand Saintes, book ii. ch. 18; Hase, § 450; Hundeshagen, Der Deut. Prot. § 17. Bruno Bauer, born 1809, was once Professor at Bonn, and teacher at Berlin. In his first manner he showed himself to be a disciple of Hegel, in works published from 1835 to 1839, such as a criticism on Strauss, and also on the Old Testament. From 1839 to 1842 he exhibited a destructive tendency directed against the sacred books; e.g. a work on the Prussian church and science, and a criticism on St. John's Gospel. The persecution which he encountered stimulating his opposition, he showed in his next works (in 1842 and 1843) a spirit of defiance in his Das Eklekte Christenthum. From 1843 to 1849 he connected himself with questions of politics, and wrote largely on social science. Since that period he has again written, both in theology, criticisms of the Gospels and Epistles, and on politics. A list of his works and a sketch of his mental character may be found in Vapereau, Dict. des Contemp. 1858.

833.

On this movement see Schwarz, b. iii. ch. i.; and on the German political socialism see the North British Review, No. 22, for Aug. 1848. Feuerbach (see Vapereau) was author of many works on the history of philosophy about 1833 to 1845. His chief works on religion were Das Wesen des Christenthums (1851), and Das Wesen der Religion, 1845. The former work was translated in 1854, and contains a discussion (1) of the true or anthropological essence of religion; (2) of the false or theological. His collected works have been published. The Hallische Jahrbücher was his organ. Criticisms on his school are given by Bartholmess (Hist. Crit. des Doctr. de la Phil. Mod. b. xiii. ch. ii.), and by E. Renan (Etudes de l'Hist. Relig. p. 405).

834.

Ruge, once a teacher at Halle; went into voluntary exile at Paris, like Heine, in 1843; was mixed in the revolutionary schemes of 1848; and in 1850 became an exile in England. See Vapereau.

835.

See above, note on p. 16. Gutskow and Mundt belonged to the same school. The former a dramatic poet, whose works against religion were about 1835, in the Prefaces to Letters of F. Schlegel, &c.; the latter, librarian at Berlin, was noted for his political connexion with the party of young Germany, rather than for any assault on religion. See Vapereau for an account of his works. The spirit of this school was tinged with bitterness against existing institutions.

836.

Gaspard Schmidt (1806-1856) wrote in 1845, under the pseudonym of Max Stirner, Der einzige und sein Eigenthum. His later works were on political economy.

837.

As schools of thought have been occasionally named in this narrative in connexion with universities, it may facilitate clearness to collect together the few hints which have been given concerning the subject. In the first period previous to 1790, we showed the theological tendencies of the four universities, Göttingen, Leipsic, Halle, and Tübingen: next, in the period after 1790, the state of Jena as the home of rationalism and of the Kantian philosophy. In our second period we pointed out the condition of Berlin as the seat of philosophical reaction under Schleiermacher and Hegel; and indirectly of the universities which represented the school of De Wette. In the third period, the school of Lutheran reaction has specially existed in Berlin, Leipsic, Erlangen, Rostock, and the Russian university of Dorpat; the school of “Mediation” chiefly at Berlin, Heidelberg, Halle, and Bonn; and the historico-critical at Tübingen. It may be useful to add, for the completion of the account, that the Tübingen school is now almost extinct in its original home; and that the two universities which at the present time represent the freest criticism are supposed to be Giessen and Jena. The latter is marked by the realistic school of philosophy described in Note 41. Hilgenfeld, the best representative of the Tübingen school, is Professor there; see Note 39, at the end of this volume.

838.

E.g. Th. Mommsen.

839.

Viz. the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, and the two to Corinth.

840.

An explanation and criticism of some of these opinions are given in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament.

841.

Vermittellungs-Theologie, and sometimes called Deutsche Theologie. See Schwarz, book iii. ch. ii. The organs of this party are the Studien und Kritiken and the Neue Evangel. Kirchenzeitung.

842.

Dorner, born in 1809; successively Professor in several universities: he has recently gone to Berlin. It is a matter of gratification that his great work, described in the text, is now in course of translation. The account of the successive steps through which it passed may be seen in the American Bibliotheca Sacra for 1849. Also an account of it is given in Theodore Parker's Miscellaneous Works, p. 287. Lange, author of the Leben Jesu, ought perhaps to be named along with the two in the text, as belonging to this school.

843.

Perhaps these two theologians ought to be regarded apart from the average of the members of the Mediation school, as being of a grander type. They approach the subject from a higher stand-point, and also are more largely moulded by philosophy. On Rothe, see. Note 40 (p. 437).

844.

In the Einleitung.

845.

Id.

846.

Vol. i. period i. ch. i.

Id. ch. ii. and iii.

Epoche, Abth. 2.

Vol. ii.

If the reader follows out the pedantic but useful mode before named, of arranging the actual schools of theology after the fashion of foreign assemblies, he will place in the right, the friends of the confessional theology; in the centre, those of the mediation theology; in the left, the old critical school of De Wette; and in the extreme left, the school of Tübingen. The first has its chief seat in Prussia, and the third probably in Thuringia and central Germany.

851.

See Kahnis, p. 262, &c.; Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. x; Hase, § 453; Schwarz, book iii. ch. iii.

852.

The dissenters from the union were not recognised legally by the state till 1845. (See the references given in the last note.) The principal of those who dissented were Kellner, Scheibel, and Huschke.

853.

Hengstenberg, born in 1802; professor at Berlin. His works are well known. His work on Christology (1829), Introduction to the Pentateuch (1831), Commentary on the Psalms (1842), and several others, are translated.

854.

Hävernick, Professor at Königsberg; died a few years since. His chief works are, a Commentary on Daniel (1838); and an Introduction to the Old Testament, which is translated.

855.

The Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, the organ of his opinions, was Pietist till about 1838; after which it favoured the reaction; especially since the theological disputes of 1845 and the political revolution of 1848. See Hase, § 451; Schwarz, book i.

856.

Stahl, who died in 1861, was eminent for piety as well as learning. His views may be learned from an address, Ueber Christliche Toleranz, 1855. The Kreuz Zeitung is the journal which has supported this political reaction. The “Theology of the Confessions” (i.e. of Augsburg, &c.) is the name which is given to the movement by its friends. See Kahnis, p. 311 seq. Much interesting information in reference to it, though occasionally expressed in a rude manner, together with references to the German authors from which it is drawn, will be found in the North British Review, No. 47, Feb. 1856, and British Quarterly Review, No. 46, April 1856. The extracts there quoted are the authority for several of the statements here made. See also Schwarz, iii. 3; Hundeshagen, Der Deutsche Protestantismus, § 22.

857.

In enumerating a few names among those that belong to this reactionary party, it is fair to state that some of them have not taken open part in the political aspects of it, and do not teach all that is described in the last few lines, which rather express the teaching of the more violent, and mark the tendencies to which the others only approximate. Some of the best known are, Harless, Delitzch, Keil, as biblical investigators; Rudelbach, Guericke, Schmid, Kurtz, and Kahnis, as historical; and Kliefoth in practical doctrine. (Kahnis has however lately adopted free views in criticism. See Colani's Nouvelle Revue de la Theologie, July 1862.) Vilmar in Hesse Cassel, and Leo at Halle, belong to the most ultra section of the school. The universities where it predominates are named at p. 277. Those however who dissent from the views of the theologians here described ought not to forget to render a tribute to the reverent piety and high motives of many of them. They are men who know and love Christ, and are striving to lead men to love him.

858.

It is a remarkable circumstance that the Oxford movement in the church of England was at first an anticatholic movement. The Catholic Emancipation Bill and the liberality of the parliament after the Reform Bill created an alarm, which led to the study of the non-juring divines and Anglo-catholics who had asserted the rights of the church, and to the reproduction of their opinions. Deeper causes were however at work; among which was the wish to find a more solid groundwork for church belief: but the political circumstances contributed the stimulus, though they were not truly the cause.

859.

The names of Stilling and Oberlin have been already cited, as instances of devoted Christians who realised the truth and tried to spread it. A writer in the Foreign Quarterly Review, vol. xxv. p. 132, attests from personal experience his knowledge of the existence of earnest faith in parishes at the time when the universities were nurseries of doubt.

860.

The missions existed previously, having been commenced by the Moravians in the last century, and carried on by several detached missionary associations in the present. On the recent improvement in Germany, see articles in the North British Review, No. 31 for Nov. 1851, and No. 40 for Feb. 1854.

861.

Die Innere Mission, founded by Dr. Wichern.

862.

The Kirchentag arose out of the Kirchenbund, and met first at Wittenberg, in the church which contains the bones of Luther and Melancthon, in 1848, while war and revolution were raging around.

863.

In addition to those named in the text, mention ought to be made of the association of the “Friends of Light,” founded by Uhlich, which represents the individual principle like the Quakers, and has resulted in forming some free congregations in Königsberg and Magdeburg. (Consult Die Deutsche Theologie, p. 26; Hase's Church History, § 456.) The movement was accused of rationalism by its opponents. Also the Gustavus Adolphus Association, begun in 1832 for the relief of all classes of protestants, was one of the first means of promoting Christian union, and indirectly produced the Kirchentag. An account of these two last associations may be found in a pamphlet (1849) by C. H. Cottrell, Religious Movements of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Kahnis notices the great facts of this revival, but with a slight sneer (p. 276, &c.).

864.

It is enough to mention Schleiermacher's Glausbenslehre, and the works of Ewald; e.g. the prefaces to the poetical and prophetical books, and his work, the Geschichte des Hebr. Volkes.

865.

In Lecture V. (p. 194.)

866.

See Damiron, Essai sur l'Histoire de la Philosophie en France au 19me siècle, 1828; and Nettement's Hist. de la Litt. Franc. sous la Restoration, 1853, and Hist. de la Litt. Franc. sous le Gouvernement de Juillet, especially b. v, vi, vii, xi; and a review of Nettement in the British Quarterly Review, No. 37; also H. J. Rose's Christian Advocate's Publication for 1832.

867.

See Morell's Hist. of Philosophy, i. 543-72, and Damiron, pp. (1-105).

868.

Chateaubriand (1768-1848) wrote his Génie du Christianisme in 1802. See Nettement, first work, quoted above, vol. i. b. x.; and, second work, vol. ii. p. 330; and the criticism by Villemain, La Tribune Moderne, ch. v.; and Sainte-Beuve's Portraits, vol. x.

869.

In his Génie du Christianisme.

870.

The sources for understanding the systems of Socialism, besides the works of its founders, are Alfred Sudre's Histoire et Refutation du Communisme, 1850, (especially ch. xvi-xx,) which obtained the Monthyou prize, and gives a history of communism in all ages; also Nettement, second work, ii. b. vii.; Morell's Hist. of Philosophy, ch. vii. § 2; an article in the Quarterly Review, No. 90, July 1831; and in the Westminster Review, 1832; and two very valuable articles in the North British Review, No. 18, May 1848, and No. 20, Feb. 1849. Those who are aware how much Socialism has influenced French philosophy and literature, as well as politics, will see that it is at once the index of certain forms of religious thought and the cause of subsequent ones, and will pardon the space bestowed in the text upon these visionary schools.

871.

1760-1825. See Morell, as above.

872.

Fourier, 1768-1818. See the same sources for information, and Nettement's second work, ii. 30. One of the chief Fourierists was Considérant.

873.

It was a system in fact which has been tried in the mode of working the Cornish mines.

874.

The St. Simonians separated about 1831 into two parties; one led by Bazard, showing a logical tendency, and including Leyroux; and the other led by Enfantin at Menilmontant, showing an emotional, among whose adherents was Michel Chevalier. The source of dispute was the emancipation of the working classes and of woman; Enfantin going beyond the other school in reference to these points. In 1832 the government interfered, and dispersed his supporters. On the relation of French journalism to the political movements, see two articles in the British Quarterly Review, vols. iii. and ix.

875.

The novels of such writers as George Sand, Victor Hugo, &c. give expression to these aspirations for social improvement, and the disposition to attribute all evil to social disarrangement.

876.

The systems of St. Simon and Fourier did not demand the abrogation of social inequality between man and man. Both would revolutionise the present state of things; but the one would replace it by a graduated scale of functionaries, the other by a more democratic and less federal system of corporations. But communism is founded on the idea of entire social equality as regards the material advantages of life. The old schemes of Babœuf and the first French revolution hardly existed in 1848, but were replaced by two forms of communism; the theoretic or “Icarian” of Cabet, and the practical of Louis Blanc. On these systems, with that of Proudhon, see the sources before described, especially Sudre and the North British Review, No. 20, where this new phase is well described. Also Hase's Church History, § 493.

877.

Comte's chief work, the Philosophie Positive, has been well translated in an abridged form by Miss Martineau, 1853. In reference to him see Morell, History of Philosophy, i. 577, &c. and important criticisms on his system in the following reviews, Revue des Deux Mondes, by E. Saisset, 1850, vol. iii; North British Review, No. 30, Aug. 1851; No. 41, May 1854; British Quarterly Review, No. 38, April 1854. Comte's later religious views are given in the Catéchisme Positiviste, 1852, and the Culte Systématique de l'Humanité ou Calendrier Positiviste (1853).

878.

Introduction, ch. i. (English translation.)

879.

Id. ch. ii. and books i-v.

880.

Book vi.

881.

See note on the subject in Lecture VIII.

882.

On Cousin, see Morell's History of Philosophy, ii. 478 seq.

883.

Mr. Morell, who was formerly a disciple of this school has brought out this thought in his work on the Philosophy of Religion, 1849, ch. vi.

884.

During the reign of Louis Philippe an attack was made on the university of Paris by the Jesuits, on the ground that the views taught there were pantheistic. The same view was adopted in an article in Fraser's Magazine, No. 170, Feb. 1844, which is valuable in giving quotations of passages which indicate the tendency of this philosophy, though the writer fails to appreciate the value of it as a reaction against the old Voltairism. The same charge is expressed in the sketch which H. L. C. Maret gives of the philosophy of the nineteenth century (in Essai sur le Panthéisme, 1845). See also Nettement's second work, vol. i. book vi; Saisset, Revue des Deux Mondes, 1850, vol. iii; and Damiron's Essai, pp. 105-197.

885.

It has not been thought necessary to name Salvador the Jew, author of Hist. des Institutions de Moses, 1828; Jésus Christ et sa Doctrine, 1839; Paris, Rome, et Jerusalem. His writings were criticised by Mr. H. J. Rose's Christian Advocate's Publication, 1831, and have been lately reviewed by the Semitic scholar A. Franck, in a series of papers in the Journal des Débats, Jan. 24, Feb. 12, May 29, June 4 and 6, 1862; and by Renan in the Etudes de l'Hist. Relig. p. 189, &c. Salvador's view is both Jewish and sceptical. Magnifying the Jewish system, he regards Christianity as an offshoot of it, imperfect in its kind; and looks to the spirit of Judaism as the future hope for the world. He professes a creed which is called by Franck Infinitheism. Whatever in his opposition to Christianity is not derived from the eclectic school is the result of his Jewish prejudices.

886.

No mention has been made of several aggressive writers who publish in the French language, mostly in Belgium, works on infidelity resembling in tone those of the last century, such as Volney. There are two such works by P. Larroque, viz. a destructive one, Examen Critique des Doctrines de la Religion Chrétienne, first, as they are stated in the dogmas of the church, and secondly, in the scriptures; in which he makes a collection of difficulties in the Bible, book by book: and another work, constructive in tone, Renovation Religieuse, 1860. A work of similar intention by P. Rénand, Christianisme et Paganisme, identité de leurs origines ou nouvelle symbolique, 1861, is a kind of reproduction of Dupuis and Volney, modified by Feuerbach. In the preface to the last-named work, the writer refers to works by Eenen and Proudhon, similarly directed against Christianity.

887.

The Conférences originated with Frayssinous in a kind of public catechising about 1802. Being changed into sermons in 1807, they were transferred from the Carmes to St. Sulpice, but closed by the government in 1809. They were resumed in 1815, and were transferred about 1830, through Ozanam's intercession with the archbishop of Paris, De Quelen, to Nôtre Dame; where Lacordaire opened his course in 1836. He, Ravignan, and Felix, respectively made themselves distinguished. A. Pontmartin has pointed out the adaptation of each teacher to the phase of public thought. (Père Félix, 1861, pp. 26-32, quoted in the Christian Remembrancer, Jan. 1862). These particulars are partly taken from Nettement's works above cited.

888.

The church during the Bourbon restoration was more Gallican than Ultramontane. See Nettement's first work, t. ii. book vii. For a survey of French literature during the present reign, see Reymond's Etudes du second Empire.

889.

This idea is well expressed in the passages quoted in Note 9.

890.

One of the modern young French writers most distinguished for power of analysis, is H. Taine, who deserves mention in connexion with the tendency which is in a different manner represented by Renan. Taine's literary character was sketched, but not with the praise which he deserves, in the Westminster Review, July 1861; and also with a special reference to his religious opinions in Scherer, Mélanges, ch. xi. He was supposed to be a positivist, but now declares himself to favour Spinoza.

891.

E. Renan, born 1823. His chief works are, Histoire Générale et Systèmes Comparés des Langues Sémitiques, 1845; De l'Origine du Langage, 1849; Averroes, 1851; Job, 1859; Cantique des Cantiques, 1860; and Essays collected, viz. Essais de Critique et de Morale, 1859; and especially Etudes de l'Histoire Religieuse, 1859, which contains a remarkable preface on the office of modern criticism. A true criticism on the last two works may be seen in Blackwood's Magazine, Nov. 1861, used in these remarks; and another by Scherer, Mélanges de la Critique Religieuse, ch. xv. He is now writing on Les Origines du Christianisme. See Fraser's Magazine, October 1862.

892.

This will be seen to be the enumeration of the essays in the Etudes de l'Histoire Relig. The essay on the future prospects of Christian churches alluded to is in the Revue des Deux Mondes for Oct. 15, 1860, where Renan examines the prospects of the centralised system of papacy, of the national system of the English and Russian churches, and of the individual system of free churches; and argues that the tendency of society is to adopt the latter, both in freedom of creed and of constitution.

893.

At the close of La Chaire d'Hébreu, 1862, he has however assumed a view of the world and of nature, less negative and more definite.

894.

See the preface to Etudes Relig. especially pp. 14, 15. It is hoped that injustice is not done to M. Renan by these statements. Perhaps they interpret his thoughts more pointedly than he himself would do, and attribute to him as positive conclusions what rather are incipient tendencies. They are the result however of a careful study of his various works, and were written before his recent Discours d'Ouverture; De la part des Peuples Sémitiques, which seems to confirm them.

895.

In Lect. V.

896.

Some remarks will be found a few pages farther, in reference to the subjective spirit and stronger consciousness of the ethical element in human nature, which are evinced in the literature of the present century.

897.

Such as Herbert and Morgan.

898.

On the influence of the Lake school of poetry, see D. M. Moir's Sketches of the Poetical Literature of the past half century, 1851, ch. i. and ii. The Lake school being a reaction against the materialist school, which almost degraded spirit to matter, traced a soul in nature, and was in danger of elevating matter to spirit. Other branches of art besides poetry exhibit a similar change of tone. This is remarkably manifest in the modern landscape art of England, and is developed incidentally in Mr. Ruskin's work, The Modern Painters. We have already had occasion, in Lecture VI, to advert to the similarity in result of the Lake school of English poetry to the Romantic school of Germany. Both were spiritual schools; but the former strove to learn from the freshness of nature, the latter from the freshness of an earlier stage of civilization.

899.

A very able analysis of the mental character of Wordsworth, to whom the words in the text allude, was given in the National Review, No. 7, Jan. 1857.

900.

Two very valuable essays occur, on Bentham and Coleridge respectively, in Mr. J. S. Mill's Essays and Dissertations, vol. i. (reprinted from the Westminster Review, Aug. 1838 and March 1840). See especially the comparison of these two philosophers at p. 395 seq.

901.

This is shown in a very striking manner in the National Review, Oct. 1856, in which a comparison is instituted of the effects on the English mind of the three teachers, J. H. Newman, Coleridge, and Carlyle.

902.

This is the arrangement adopted in Mr. Pearson's work on Infidelity, named on p. 13, note.

903.

Concerning Comte's philosophy see the note on p. 295. The Westminster Review is the periodical which at present embodies its spirit. The works of Mr. G. H. Lewes, his History of Philosophy, and his exposition of Comte (Bohn 1853), may be noticed as books in which the philosophical, and, to some extent, the theological spirit of positivism prevails. The mind of Mr. J. S. Mill has been largely influenced by this philosophy, to which his tastes for natural science disposed him; though the influence on him of the philosophy of his father, James Mill, and of Bentham, as well as his own originality of mind, prevents him from being a mere disciple of Comte. These writers however have almost abstained from touching directly on the subject of religion. The character of Positivism, as an intellectual tendency, has been sketched by Mr. Morell, in the Lectures on the Philosophical tendencies of the Age, 1848.

904.

The view of religion as a worship of the ideal of humanity, in the form of practical ethics and social study, which is taken by the better class of Positivists, is stated at length in the Westminster Review for April 1858, together with an explanation of the extravagant views of Comte, in the Catéchisme Positiviste, which has been translated by one who was formerly highly respected as an indefatigable teacher, in one of the public schools, and afterwards in one of the universities.

905.

Secularism is the name adopted a few years ago by Mr. G. J. Holyoake. See Christianity and Secularism; Report of the Public Discussion between the Rev. B. Grant and Mr. Holyoake; also, Modern Atheism, or the Pretensions of Secularism examined; a course of Four Lectures, delivered in the Athenæum, Bradford, by the Rev. J. Gregory, &c. 1852; Secular Tracts, by the Rev. J. H. Hinton; The Outcast and the Poor of London, Whitehall Sermons, by the Rev. F. Meyrick, p. 91 seq. In its social aspect it is the form of naturalism which has been borrowed from Owen and Combe; in its religious, from Comte. The political tone of this system is expressed in a poem, The Purgatory of Suicides; a Prison Rhyme, by Thomas Cooper the Chartist, 1858; and the religious in the Confessions of Joseph Barker, a Convert from Christianity, 1858. Also in the tracts of Mr. Holyoake, e.g. The Logic of Death, written in 1849, during the cholera. These last two writers are the chief teachers of the system. Some small magazines are devoted to its propagation. A criticism on these tendencies among the working classes will be found, from the Unitarian point of view, in the National Review, No. 15, Jan. 1859, where this class of political and religious obstacles, encountered in dealing with the working classes, is contrasted with the mere animalism described in Miss Marsh's English Hearts and Hands; and from a more sceptical point of view, in the Westminster Review for Jan. 1862, where an extract is given (p. 83) concerning Holyoake's view of Deity. The following terrible utterance, taken from his Discussion with Townley (p. 68), will give an idea of his tone: “Science has shown us that we are under the dominion of general laws, and that there is no special Providence. Nature acts with fearful uniformity: stern as fate, absolute as tyranny, merciless as death; too vast to praise, too inexplicable to worship, too inexorable to propitiate; it has no ear for prayer, no heart for sympathy, no arm to save.”

906.

The chief points against which the objections have been taken are, the scriptural account of the character of Christ, the doctrine of atonement, and the necessity of faith to salvation. See the Report of the discussion which is referred to at the commencement of the last note.

907.

Mr. Buckle's work on the History of Civilization is an instance to which these statements apply.

908.

The difficulties alluded to are, those suggested by geology, concerning the narrative of creation, the deluge, and the date of the creation of man; or by physiology, concerning the longevity of the patriarchs; or by ethnology, concerning the unity of mankind.

909.

T. Carlyle. The character of his writings and philosophy is explained and criticised in Morell's History of Philosophy, ii. 249 seq.; and in an able manner in the Westminster Review, Oct. 1839; both which sources have been much used in the following brief account. The latter article would be considered probably to need a slight alteration, in consequence of the slight change of character in Carlyle's more recent works.

910.

Cfr. his Life of Sterling, 1850, pp. 126, 7.

911.

It may be enough to refer to such a passage as Past and Present, pp. 305-9.

912.

Past and Present, pp. 193, 4.

913.

Id. pp. 271, 2.

914.

Mr. Emerson: it ought to be noticed however that the following remarks are applicable mainly, if not wholly, to his earlier works; on which there is a criticism, similar to that cited in reference to Carlyle, in the Westminster Review, March 1840.

915.

“I am nothing—I see all—the currents of the universal being circulate through me—I am part or particle of God.”—Nature, p. 13. These were the words which this author formerly used. The same tendency can probably be traced in the characters of Plato and Goethe in his Representative Men. See also the Oration on the Christian Teacher.

916.

R. W. Mackay, whose two works are, The Progress of the Intellect as exemplified in the Religious Development of the Greeks and Hebrews, 2 vols. 1850, and The Rise and Progress of Christianity, 1854. (No. 7 of Chapman's Quarterly Series.)

917.

Progress of Intellect, vol. i. ch. ii. on “Mythical Geography and Cosmogony.”

918.

Ch. iii.

919.

Ch. iv.

920.

Vol. ii. ch. v. § 3 and 9. He illustrates from natural processes; such as the decay of nature.

921.

Ch. vi.

922.

Ch. vii.

923.

Ch. viii. The types of thought which he traces in it are, the conception of prophet as taught by Moses; the idea of a supernatural incarnation; the Davidic conception of a temporal sovereign; and the suffering Messiah of the book of Daniel.

924.

Ch. ix. and x.

925.

Rise of Christianity, parts i. and ii.

Part iii.

Part iv.

Parts v. and vii.

The Creed of Christendom, its Foundation and Superstructure, by W. Rathbone Greg. 1851. A review of it by Mr. Martineau may be seen in Studies on Christianity (reprinted from the Westminster Review), and by Remusat in Revue des Deux Mondes, Jan. 1859.

Ch. i. and ii.

Ch. iii.

Ch. iv.

Ch. v.

Ch. vi.

Ch. vii.

Ch. viii-xii. He adopts the view of the new Tübingen school, in exaggerating the contrast between the description of the character and teaching of Christ in the “Synoptical” evangelists, and in the fourth Gospel.

Ch. xiii.

Ch. xiv.

Ch. xv.

Ch. xvi.

Ch. xvii. He quotes the beautiful lines of Wordsworth, (Ode on Intimations of Immortality, § 5,) “Heaven lies about us in our infancy,” &c. as illustrative of the instinctive feeling of man in reference to immortality.

942.

Page 303.

943.

Miss S. Hennell, whose chief writings are, Christianity and Infidelity, a prize essay, an exposition of the arguments on both sides, 1857; The Sceptical Tendency of Butler's Analogy, 1859; The Early Christian Anticipation of the End of the World, 1860; Thoughts in Aid of Faith, gathered chiefly from recent works in Theology and Philosophy, 1860. Her views originally were the same as those of her brother, a deceased unitarian minister, author of a work on Theism (1852), in which the use of miracles as an evidence was depreciated. It is hoped that it will not be considered improper to have named a writer, whose sex might be expected to shelter her from remark; but her writings are too able to be unproductive of influence.

944.

Thoughts in Aid of Faith, ch. i. This work was reviewed in the Westminster Review, July 1860, and the North British Review for Nov. 1860.

945.

Ch. ii.

946.

E.g. ch. v.

947.

Ch. vi. and vii. It is a result not unlike that of positivism, but reached from the ontological instead of the physical side.

948.

Mr. Theodore Parker of Boston.

949.

Mr. F. Newman. The wide spread of the works of these two writers, especially of the latter, is the reason why it is thought desirable to exhibit their views at some length. The pathos and eloquence which belong to their writings impart to them a fascination which makes it the more necessary that readers should be on their guard, by understanding the position which these authors hold in relation to faith and to unbelief.

950.

The particulars are obtained from the account of Mr. Parker's ministry, prefixed to his Sermons on Theism. He was at first a unitarian minister; but, changing from unitarianism into deism, he left that body, and became a preacher in Boston, until he was compelled to visit Europe on account of enfeebled health. He died at Florence, 1860. His doctrinal views may be learned from the Discourse on Matters pertaining to Religion, written in 1846, and the Sermons on Theism, Atheism, and the Popular Theology, 1853; and his critical and literary views, from the Introduction to the Old Testament, based on De Wette; and from his Miscellaneous Writings, 1848. A comparison of him with Strauss, which has been here used, was given in the Westm. Rev. for April 1847. His character and life have also been sketched in the Nat. Rev. Jan. 1860, and especially by A. Reville in the Revue des Deux Mondes, Oct. 1861.

951.

E. Renan. See p. 303.

952.

In the Discourse pertaining to Matters of Religion, books ii, iii, iv. The writer is unable to put the exact references to this work in the remarks which follow; having omitted to note them down when he had the book at hand.

953.

Discourse, book i.

954.

The steps through which he considers that the idea of God is developed into a conception are, Fetishism, Polytheism, and Monotheism; Dualism and Pantheism being errors which lead astray from Monotheism.

955.

Sermons on Theism, sermons i. and ii.

956.

Id. sermons ix. and x.

957.

Discourse on Religion, books ii. and iv.

958.

E.g. in Discourse, book iii. and several passages in the Introduction to the Old Testament.

959.

Mr. F. W. Newman.

960.

The Phases of Faith, 1850.

Ch. i.

Ch. ii.

Ch. iii.

Ch. iv.

Ch. v. and vi.

To complete this account it is necessary to add, that Mr. Newman has developed some portion of the critical investigations of his studies of Jewish history in the History of the Hebrew Monarchy, 1847. It is a treatment of the Old Testament analogous to that to which we are accustomed in classical history; the answer to which would be by denying that the records of the Hebrew history are amenable to criticism, inasmuch as they do not partake of the ordinary conditions which appertain to human literature.

967.

The Soul, her Sorrows and her Aspirations, 1849. In the date of publication this preceded the Phases. Mr. Newman has subsequently published, Theism, Doctrinal, Practical, or Didactic, 1858. The most complete view of his scheme, but of course wholly favourable to him, is in the Westminster Review, Oct. 1858.

Ch. i.

Ch. ii.

Ch. iii. and iv.

Ch. i. The scheme much resembles that of Schleiermacher.

972.

Deism and Unitarianism are both monotheistic; but the latter allows the existence of a revelation, the former denies it. The modern school of Unitarians, however, nearly approach to the position of Mr. Newman. See end of Note 6, at the close of this book.

973.

In many respects it resembles the “Mediation school” of Germany, described in Lectures VI and VII, and the modern school of the French protestant church, described in p. 304, and in Note 46, p. 448.

974.

It would be more delicate perhaps to leave to the reader the application of these tendencies, and to omit the mention of names; but as the practice in this work has been to give the names even in contemporary history, fairness requires the enumeration. The tendencies in the text however are rather a combination from the views of different modern authors, and cannot be definitely referred as a whole to any one single writer. Probably the reader will himself conjecture that the first tendency is meant in the main to describe the teaching of Mr. Maurice and Mr. Kingsley; the second, of Professor Jowett; the third, of some of the writers in Essays and Reviews. But if this be approximately true, it must not be supposed that every specific statement in the following account is intended to be charged upon these respective authors. The description is meant to indicate certain tendencies of free thought, of which their writings among others seem to exhibit instances. It is always hard to judge of a movement which is in progress, and of which we are ourselves spectators. The view here taken is the result of the attempt which the writer of these lectures has made in his own studies, to adjust the existing forms of free thought into their true position in the history of speculation. If injustice is done, it is at least not intended.

975.

It may be useful to draw attention to a book on the relation of Coleridge to recent theological thought, Modern Anglican Theology, by the Rev. J. H. Rigg, 1857. The book is by a Wesleyan minister, and is written from that point of view. The tone of censure on the writers criticised is in some parts severe, and has, it is understood, caused pain to some of them. Apart from its tone, objection may perhaps be taken to it, as discovering in their works as positive teaching, doctrines which probably only exist as incipient tendencies. Nevertheless it contains material suggestive of serious thought; and certainly gives the clue to the interpretation of many points which are usually felt to be obscure in the systems of several of the writers described. The author does not however appear to have distinguished sufficiently between the two forms of modern historical inquiry (see Note 9 of these lectures, at the end of the book). He consequently makes the last of the list of writers whom he criticises (ch. xiii.) to be a disciple of Coleridge; whereas he rather belongs to the other form of the historico-philosophical school.

976.

Page 310.

977.

The reference to Mr. J. S. Mill's dissertation on Coleridge has been already given (p. 310.) See also the Essay by Mr. Hort in the Cambridge Essays, 1856; the British Quarterly Review, Jan. 1854; Morell's History of Philosophy, ii. 343 seq.; and Remusat in Revue des Deux Mondes, Oct. 1856. Coleridge's philosophy of religion is especially to be found in his Aids to Reflection; and his critical views of inspiration in the Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit.

978.

The distinctness of the “reason” (νοῦς) from the “understanding” (λόγος or διάνοια) has been allowed in these lectures; but only as guaranteeing the reality of the objects of intuition, not as allowing the mind to create a religion à priori. The objection in the text is accordingly not so much directed against the psychological theory as its theological application.

979.

The sources for studying Neo-Platonism have been given in Note 10 (p. 399). Among writers influenced by Coleridge, the element of thought which is derived from Neo-Platonism is stronger in the writings of Mr. Kingsley than in those of Mr. Maurice; but it is sufficiently observable in both to form a separation, by marked philosophical features, between their teaching and the system of Schleiermacher.

980.

The Λόγος of Philo and of the Neo-Platonists is not to be contrasted with the faculty called reason by Coleridge, and νοῦς by other authors, but to be identified with it. For Philo's views, see Gfrörer, Philo, and Dähne's article Philo in Ersch and Grueber's Encyclopædia: see also Jowett's Commentary on St Paul's Epistles, vol. i. (Essay on Philo, § 1).

981.

The existence of a divine teacher in the human mind in the faculty of conscience would be generally allowed; especially by those who adopt the theory of the distinctness of the faculty of reason from that of understanding; but the idea implied in the hypothesis referred to in the text is the existence of a faculty which is supreme over revelation.

982.

Cfr. Biogr. Lit. p. 321, and Aids to Reflection, vol. i. 204 seq.

983.

On the school of the Alexandrian fathers, see note on p. 59.

984.

Cfr. the note on p. 29, where we have conceded the probability that inspiration is, if analysed psychologically, a form of the “reason;” but considered it, if viewed theologically, to be an elevated state of this faculty, brought about by the miraculous and direct operation of God's Spirit: so that in this view it differs in kind, and not merely in degree, from human genius.

985.

Lect. VI. pp. 245-48.

986.

Cfr. note (80) on p. 329.

987.

Cfr. Note 9, at the end of the book, and the remarks in the Preface on the historic method of study.

988.

It is a truth indeed to which all will assent, that we must learn from scripture what is meant by inspiration: but the difference between the view here described and the view of the church of Christ is this: the Church discovers in scripture the statements of the writers concerning the reality and nature and authority of their own inspiration; and considers henceforth that the character of the revelation is in its substance removed beyond the limits of critical investigation; and can only admit that an empirical inquiry can be useful in settling the limits to which inspiration extends, and determining the question as to the writings to be accounted the subject of it.

989.

Pages 330 and 334.

990.

The existence of this movement in foreign churches is stated in Lect. VII, and also in Notes 43 and 46, pp. 444, 448. In America, besides those instances which have occurred in this lecture, the writings of Mr. Bushnell are thought to exhibit a free spirit. They however deviate very slightly from traditional dogmas, and may be compared with the writings of the late archdeacon Hare. In England, in the established church, there have been several works, besides those referred to in p. 330. They chiefly belong to the first and third classes of the three named in the text. The sermons of the late F. W. Robertson of Brighton, matchless in freshness, but most unsound in questions of vital doctrine; the sermons, &c. of the Rev. J. L. Davies; bishop Colenso's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1861); and the Tracts for Priests and People (1861, 62), may be considered to be examples of the first type of thought; but, if breathing the same spirit as Coleridge, they express his thoughts with a clearness which was wanting in him. The doubts of Blanco White and Sterling; and of Mr. Macnaught, in his work on Inspiration (1856); Mr. Foxton's Popular Christianity (1849); bishop Colenso's work on the Pentateuch (1862); and the Christian Orthodoxy (1857) of Dr. Donaldson, a name honoured by the philological student; are instances of the third tendency named in the text. A tribute of acknowledgment is nevertheless due to many of these writers, for the earnest and truth-seeking tone which pervades their works. The movement of free thought exists also outside the national church. The recent work of Dr. S. Davidson, Introduction to the Old Testament (second edition) is an instance. The views however of this eminent biblical scholar met with so little sympathy in his own denomination, that he was made to suffer for an earlier edition (1856) of the same work, which deviated in a much slighter degree from received opinions. In the Unitarian body also free thought has wrought a change. (See Note 7, at the end of this book.) The influence of Cousin has expelled the old utilitarianism. Mr. Martineau and Mr. W. J. Fox (see his Religious Ideas, 1849,) are illustrations of the new spirit.

991.

Cfr. p. 312, and the note to it. Positivism only differs from Naturalism (see Note 21, at the end of this book), in that it expresses a particular theory concerning the limits and method of science, as well as the disbelief in the supernatural implied by the latter term.

992.

Cfr. p. 317.

993.

An instructive sketch of the tendencies of modern thought was given by principal Tullock, in his Inaugural Lecture at St. Andrew's, 1845.

994.

See p. 10. This crisis has occupied our attention since the middle of Lecture III, p. 105.

Lect. I. page 1.

Page 7.

Page 7.

This was treated in Lecture II.

999.

Lecture III, page 76 seq.

1000.

Lecture III. page 92 seq.

1001.

Lectures IV. to VIII.

Page 2.

Page 13.

Pages 16, 17.

Pages 14-17.

Page 20.

Page 21.

Cfr. remarks in Note 9, at the end of this volume.

1009.

This remark does not apply to the principal writers (named in Note 49), nor to the literature called out by the “Essays and Reviews” controversy; but it applies to many of the popular manuals which are directed against old deist literature, and are not adapted to modern critical doubts.

1010.

See note on p. 22.

1011.

Van Mildert so exclusively adopted this latter view in his Boyle Lectures, that his opponents charged him with Manichæism. See remarks on him in the Preface to this volume.

1012.

Cfr. the notes on pp. 26 and 32.

1013.

Pages 14, 71, &c.

1014.

Page 3.

1015.

This is seen in their scrupulous care against heresy, and is attested by the very complaint of their opponent Celsus. (Orig. Contr. Cels. i. 9, iii. 44.)

1016.

H. T. Buckle, the news of whose death, at the end of May 1862, had just reached England when this lecture was delivered.

1017.

History of Civilisation, vol. i. ch. iv.

1018.

History of Civilisation, ch. xii and xiii.

1019.

An article by a distinguished scientific writer appeared in the North British Review for Nov. 1860; in which the question of Galileo's trial was discussed in reference to the recent re-examination of the subject.

1020.

Cfr. Grote's History of Greece, vol. viii. ch. lxvii; Lewes, History of Philosophy (chapter on Sophists); Grant, Aristotle's Ethics, vol. i; essay ii.

1021.

See above, Lecture IV. p. 159.

1022.

Cfr. Mill's Logic, vol. i. book iii. ch. xiii. § 7.

1023.

The allusion is to the discoveries, such as that of Kirchoff, of the existence of some of the material elements in the solar atmosphere, which exist in our own; also of the connexion between the periodic recurrence of the solar spots, and terrestrial magnetism; and especially to the discussion on “the correlation of physical forces,” contained in Mr. Grove's work, and in Sir H. Holland's Essays (essays i. and ii.), reprinted from the Edinburgh Review, July 1858 and Jan. 1859.

1024.

The discoveries of the distinction between the sensational and motor nerves, by Sir C. Bell; of the phenomena of reflex action, by Dr. M. Hall; of the connexion of the same phenomena with those of sensation, by Dr. Carpenter; and the identification of the centres of conscious activity with separate departments of the cerebral organism, by Dr. Laycock; are instances of hints toward the solution of this problem. Many continental physiologists, such as Müller, Carus, Wagner, and Brown-Séquard, have worked toward the same end. J. F. Herbart in Germany, and Mr. H. Spencer in England, are writers who have approached the psychological problem from the physiological side.

1025.

Bayn's Senses and Intellect, 1855; Emotions and Will, 1859; and Spencer's Principles of Psychology, 1855, are works in which analysis of this character is carried farther than in former works. A popular view of past attempts of this kind is given in an article on Mental Association, in the Edinburgh Review for Oct. 1859.

1026.

An example is seen in Strauss. No one can be more inimical to the dogmatic and historical Christianity of the church than he; yet he asserts firmly that Christ and Christianity is the highest moral ideal to which the world can ever expect to attain. (Soliloquies, E. T. 1845, part ii. § 27-30.)

1027.

E. de Pressensé. Histoire 2e Série, ii. 524.

1028.

Pressensé has devoted attention to this point. (vol. iv. book iv.)

1029.

Cfr. Pressensé, vol. iv. book iv. 161, 521.

1030.

This is the view at which Guizot arrives; Hist. de la Civil. leçon v, vi, x.

1031.

E.g. in Kant, Jacobi, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. See Lectures VI. and VII.

1032.

References for the study of Neander's life are given in a note on page 250.

1033.

See Acts xvii. 22-31.

1034.

Cfr. Pressensé on Clement and Origen, Hist. iv. pp. 203, 360, and the references there given.

1035.

Page 73.

1036.

E.g. Justin Martyr, who gives the account of his own conversion to Christianity in the introduction to the Dialogue with Trypho; and Clement of Alexandria.

1037.

Cfr. Lect. I. p. 28. Suggestions on this point are given in Miller's Bampton Lectures, 1817. “The Divine Authority of Holy Scripture asserted from its adaptation to Human Nature.”

1038.

See above, p. 277.

1039.

The question of the attacks made on the historic character of the Acts was not noticed in Lecture VII. The statement of the difficulties which have given rise to them may be seen in Baur's Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, 1845, and in an article in the National Review, No. 20, for April 1860; and a refutation of them in Dr. S. Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii.

1040.

Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul, by Lord Lyttleton, 1747. Cfr. also the note above, on p. 209.

1041.

The history of the doctrine of the atonement is given in Bp. Thomson's Bampton Lectures, 1853 (lectures vi. and vii.), and in the essay on the Atonement in Aids to Faith, 1862; also in Hagenbach's Doqmengeschichte, § 68, 134, 180, 268, and 300. The two chief works on the subject are, Chr. Baur's Lehre von der Versöhnung, 1838, and Dorner's Lehre von der Person Christi. The fair conclusion in respect to the doctrine of the early church on the subject seems to be the one stated in the text. The doctrine of the atonement was believed and taught; but for the reason here named it was not drawn out into such explicit statement as in modern times. Anselm developed it by eliciting what was already contained in it, not by superadding any human elements which did not exist there before. It is Baur, to whom allusion is made in the text, who implies the contrary; and some English writers have followed him.

1042.

The work of the late Professor Blunt on the right use of the Fathers may be consulted for a true and right view of their value.

1043.

We apprehend a fact when we recognise its existence; we comprehend it when we can refer it to the cause which produces it.

1044.

Cfr. the remarks in Dr. Whewell's preface to his edition of Butler's first three sermons for some suggestions on the nature of conscience. His object is to show that Butler taught only its psychological supremacy, not its moral infallibility. Cfr. also his Lecture on Moral Philosophy in England, p. 129 seq.

1045.

Page 84. Cfr. also bishop Thomson's Bampton Lectures (lect. v. p. 125).

1046.

Page 245 seq.

1047.

Similarly, an innate law of thought is logically prior as a condition in attaining knowledge; but experience is chronologically prior.

1048.

It has been shown above (p. 310) that this very reaction is itself indirectly a result of the subjective tendency.

1049.

E.g. in R. E. H. Greyson (H. Rogers) Correspondence. Cfr. the remarks on it in the National Review for Oct. 1857.

1050.

Matt. xxviii. 20.

1051.

E.g. Augustin, Anselm, and in modern times such men as Bengel and Neander.

1052.

Rev. xii. 11.

1053.

1 Cor. iii. 12.

1054.

In the able work on Tite Live by H. Taine, (Couronné, 1856,) will be found a study of Livy as a critic and as a philosopher; which illustrates not only the scientific aspect of history, but the influence of science in the special determination of the facts, which has frequently been attributed to art.

1055.

Voyage dans l'Inde par C. Fakian, traduit par A. Remusat, 1837. and Hist. de la Vie de Hiouen Thsang, being vol. i. of Mémoires sur les Contrées Occidentales, 1858. by Stan. Julien. The former travelled about A.D. 400: the latter in the seventh century.

1056.

The abbé Migne is publishing in French, Livres Sacrés de toutes les Religions sauf la Religion Chrétienne.

1057.

In the work quoted above, Science in Theology, the date of this Rabbin was erroneously given as the seventeenth century (p. 123). This was the date when Wagenseil by great good fortune obtained a copy of his work, and first made it public. The writer avails himself of this opportunity, in which he has occasion to name his own volume, to correct a few mistakes, and make a few alterations where subsequent study has convinced him that he was in error. E.g. In Sermon IV. the illustration from Indian history (p. 111) is based on the view, now known to be wrong, that Buddhism preceded Brahminism in origin. Also the view (p. 109) of the date of the introduction of the Chaldee character has been rendered doubtful by the arguments which Hupfeld has directed to the subject (Ausführliche Hebraische Grammatik), in which he shows that the corruption of the language was gradual, and that the adoption of the square Chaldee character did not take place till after Christ. (See a brief account of his views in Davidson's Introd. to Old Test. 1856, ch. ii.) Also, p. 121, the use of the word “surnamed” for Jarchi disguises the origin of the name. In Sermon I. (2d div.) the order of chronology is not sufficiently observed in the quotations from the Old Testament. In Serm. VIII. (p. 244) the apologetic worth of miracles (suggested by a remarkable speech of Bp. Wilberforce in the Town Hall, Oxford, Nov. 28, 1846. See Oxford Herald of Dec. 5) is perhaps hardly sufficient. In Serm. VI. the view that the early church held the doctrine of atonement implicitly rather than explicitly, in life rather than dogma, till Anselm's time, is insufficient and liable to convey an erroneous impression. (See Bp. Thomson's restatement of the historic question in Aids to Faith, pp. 339-352.) The revelation of God in the New Testament is most express on the subject of substitutional atonement. Of this the writer of these Sermons never had any doubt; but he now thinks that there are clearer evidences of it in the fathers than he had stated. Reasons are perceivable in the circumstance of the constant struggle against heathen religions, in which the fathers were involved, which led them to dwell on the incarnation rather than on the atonement. Anselm only gave expression to the doctrine which the apostles had clearly taught.

1058.

There are congregations of reformed Jews in some countries who reject the Talmud as a system of interpretation. They are Jewish protestants. Their standpoint only differs from that of the old Jews in laying stress on the ethical aspect of religion. Sermons by one of them, the Rabbin Marks, have lately been published in England. It will be understood from the above account that the modern Jews include three parties; the orthodox Jews, the reformed, and the rationalistic.

1059.

Cfr. Hävernick's Introd. to Old Test. (E. T.) § 23, 24.

1060.

Cfr. Bp. Horsley's Letters against Priestley, Lett. xvi, p. 264.

1061.

The nearest English parallel to the teaching of Arminius personally (as distinct from that of his successors), on the quinquarticular controversy, is the doctrine of John Wesley. The nearest parallel to the general views of Episcopius and Limborch was Hey of Cambridge at the close of the last century.

1062.

A sketch of Priestley is given in Mr. Martineau's Miscellanies.

1063.

But see Pressensé, Hist. de l'Eglise, 2e Ser. t. ii. p. 154.

1064.

The transition of the word miscreant from its original meaning of misbeliever (mécroyant, miscredente), to its modern use as a mark of opprobrium, is a similar instance. This change is a proof of the instinctive association of the dependence of right conduct on right belief. It is about the time of Shakspeare that the change of meaning begins to appear. See Richardson's Dictionary, sub voc.

1065.

It is hardly necessary to state, that when the tone of the English theological writers of the eighteenth century is described as rationalism, it is used in a good sense. (E.g. Essays and Reviews, Ess. vi.) The writers of that century would be classified under the school of supernaturalists here named.

1066.

In the time of Napoleon I. the circumstance that the ideological philosophers sympathised with the Revolution, in opposition to his regime, led to an application of the term as synonymous with Republican.

1067.

These references to Guhrauer were kindly suggested by the Rev. E. H. Hansell, Prælector of Theology in Magdalen College, who studied the Fragments a few years ago for lectures which he delivered on Lessing.

1068.

For a description of the division of Theological study implied by this term, see Credner's Introduction to Kitto's Bibl. Cyclop.; and the translation of Tholuck's Lectures, given in the American Bibloith. Sacra, 1844.

1069.

Hegel used to claim that his doctrine was merely giving expression to the ancient speculations of Heracleitus concerning the union of opposites. It is probable that the fundamental idea was the same, but Hegel supplied an interpretation and application of the principle which the ancient philosopher could not contemplate. Both in truth committed the same fundamental mistake, of making the mind the measure of things. The union of opposites is an act of thought, not a fact relating to things.

1070.

This statement is taken from a paper on the history of German Theology, in the Spectator, May 24, 1862.

1071.

His work on Dogmatique is in his earlier manner.

1072.

The strict difference would be, that analogy is the resemblance of ratios, where the objects, in which the ratios are perceived, are not known to be referable to the same general class; παράδειγμα on the contrary where they are so.

1073.

A plan of arrangement of this kind is used by Mr. Bolton in the Hulsean Prize Essay for 1852, The Evidences of Christianity, as exhibited in the writings of the Apologists down to Augustine.

1074.

Cfr. Gerard, Compendium of Evidences, 1828, part ii. ch. i.

1075.

Notes 14, 15, 17, 19, afford illustrations bearing upon the same subject.

1076.

This remark is only intended to apply to the apologetic writings, which are not the best works, of the fathers. In the fourth century we meet with a group of fathers of a higher type of mind than those of the first three; e.g. Eusebius Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Ambrose, and Jerome. Speaking generally, however, the three writers, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustin, are probably the only ones who had minds of the highest class, and who thoroughly exceed the contemporary heathen writers of their day in mental penetration, freshness, and compass, respectively. If we have compared Origen in mind with Hugo St. Victor, and Schleiermacher, as a Christian philosopher (Lect. VI.), we might also venture to compare Augustin with Aquinas or Calvin, in power to grasp systematic truth; and Chrysostom with Bernard, and in some respects with Bossuet, in eloquence, learning, and vigour. Eusebius perhaps almost demands a place with these three, but he was a man of knowledge rather than originality.

1077.

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.

1078.

In naming the Boyle Lectures, it may be permitted to the writer of these lectures to express the regret which he has often felt, that there is no history written of the various apologetic Lectures, and of the works which they called forth, such, e.g. as the Boyle (1692), Lady Moyer (1719), Warburton (1772), Bampton (1760), Donnellan (1794), and Hulsean Lectures (1820), in the Church; and the Lime Street (1730), Berry Street (1733), Coward (1739), and Congregational Lectures (1833), among the Dissenters; and more generally that there is no history of English theology and of English theological literature. Much as we need a fair account of the English Church, viewed in its external and its constitutional history, we still more need a history which would enter into the inner life, and give its intellectual and spiritual history. Such a work would not only give a detailed account of the various works on evidence and of the other literature, but would enter into the causes and character of the various schools of thought which have existed in each age,—e.g. of the struggle of semi-Romanist and Calvinistic principles in Elizabeth's reign:—in the next age, the reproduction of the teaching of the Greek as distinct from the Latin Fathers in Andrewes and Laud; the Arminianism of Hales and Chillingworth; the Calvinism of the Puritans: again, later, the rise of the philosophical latitudinarianism of Whichcote, More, and Cudworth; the theological position of the non-jurors; the Arian tendencies of Clarke and Whiston; the cold want of spirituality of divines of the type of Hoadley; the reasoning school of Butler, the evangelical revival of Wesley and Simeon; and, in the nineteenth century, the philosophical revival under Coleridge, and the ecclesiastical in the Tracts for the Times. Subjects like these, if treated not only in a literary manner, but in connection with their philosophical relations, would lift the history above a merely national purpose, and make it a lasting contribution to the history of the human mind. If executed worthily, such a work might take a rank along with the grand works on literature of Hallam. Much as the present taste for documentary history is to be commended, and the publication of ancient historic documents to be desired, it is to be hoped that it will not lead to the divorce of history from philosophy. History becomes mere antiquarianism, if the philosopher is not at hand to build its parts into the general history of humanity. Philosophy becomes an hypothesis, if it is disconnected from the actual exemplification of its principles on the theatre of the world.

1079.

Paley's argument has been extended to the Gospels and other parts of Scripture by the lamented Professor Blunt. (Cfr. also his Essay on Paley, reprinted from the Quarterly Review, Oct. 1828.)

1080.

The course for 1849, on the Evidences, by Mr. Michell, marked the commencement of the consciousness of the spread of free thought; but was not directed to the novel foreign forms of it.

1081.

The Lectures however of Dr. Hessey in 1860, though directed to a different subject, evince a knowledge of the literary studies of foreign theologians.

1082.

The writer hopes that the note on p. 374 will not be considered an ungenerous censure of Mr. Rogers, who is selected because he is the ablest and wisest of those writers who have used this argument.

1083.

It is hardly necessary to state, that Mr. Maurice and Mr. Goldwin Smith, besides others, have criticised this work in distinct publications.

1084.

Ellis's work on The Knowledge of Divine Things, 1811, breathes a similar spirit in modern times. Cfr. Note 44.

1085.

The anti-Straussian Literature described in Note 38 is an illustration of the German apologetic.

1086.

Dr. Pusey also, in his Hist. Inq. on German Theol. p. 2. ch. v, quoted many passages illustrative of the history of the same fact. He has, however, subsequently disavowed all concurrence in the opinions of the writers cited.

1087.

Among writers who lived earlier than the periods alluded to in the passages of Lectures III. and VIII., the following are also cited in the works before named: Origen (Comm. in Joan. ii. 151. ed. Huet), Jerome (Comm. in Gal. iii. vol. iv); Augustin (in Joan, iv. 1); Zuinglius (Schrift.-von Usteri, ii. 247); Calvin (Comm. on Hebr. ii. 21. Rom. iii. 4. Rom. ii. 8); Bullinger (on 1 Cor. x. 8). Castellio (Dial. ii. de Elect. on Rom. ix), Erasmus (on Matt. ii); Grotius (Vot pro Pac. art. de Can. Script.); Episcoplus (Inst. Theol. iv. § 1). Passages of Hooker and Chillingworth were also cited by Mr. Stephen.