1 Jenkin Thomasius in his Historia Atheismi (1692) joins Herbert with Bodin as having five points in common with him (ed. 1709, ch. ix, § 2, pp. 76–77). ↑
2 It might have been supposed that he was recalled on account of his book; but it was not so. He was recalled by letter in April, returned home in July, and seems to have sent his book thence to Paris to be printed. ↑
3 Autobiography, Sir S. Lee’s 2nd ed. p. 132. ↑
4 The book was reprinted at London in Latin in 1633; again at Paris in 1636; and again at London in 1645. It was translated and published in French in 1639, but never in English. ↑
5 Compare the verdict of Hamilton in his ed. of Reid, note A, § 6, 35 (p. 781). ↑
6 For a good analysis see Pünjer, Hist. of the Christ. Philos. of Religion, Eng. trans. 1887, pp. 292–99; also Noack, Die Freidenker in der Religion, Bern, 1853, i, 17–40; and Lechler, Geschichte des englischen Deismus, pp. 36–54. ↑
7 See his Autobiography, as cited, pp. 133–34. ↑
8 De causis errorum, una cum tractate de religione laici et appendice ad sacerdotes (1645); De religione gentilium (1663). The latter was translated into English in 1705. The former are short appendices to the De Veritate. In 1768 was published for the first time from a manuscript, A Dialogue between a Tutor and his Pupil, which, despite the doubts of Lechler, may confidently be pronounced Herbert’s from internal evidence. See the “Advertisement” by the editor of the volume, and cp. Lee, p. xxx, and notes there referred to. The “five points,” in particular, occur not only in the Religio Gentilium, but in the De Veritate. The style is clearly of the seventeenth century. ↑
9 Sir Sidney Lee can hardly be right in taking the Dialogue to be the “little treatise” which Herbert proposed to write on behaviour (Autobiography, Lee’s 2nd ed. p. 43). It does not answer to that description, being rather an elaborate discussion of the themes of Herbert’s main treatises, running to 272 quarto pages. ↑
11 More Reasons for the Christian Religion, 1672, p. 79. ↑
12 It is to be remembered that the doctrine of the supremacy of the civil power in religious matters (Erastianism) was maintained by some of the ablest men on the Parliamentary side, in particular Selden. ↑
13 Leviathan, ch. iv, H. Morley’s ed. p. 26. ↑
14 Cp. his letter to an opponent, Considerations upon the Reputation, etc., of Thomas Hobbes, 1680, with chs. xi and xii of Leviathan, and De Corpore Politico, pt. ii, c. 6. One of his most explicit declarations for theism is in the De Homine, c. 1, where he employs the design argument, declaring that he who will not see that the bodily organs are a mente aliqua conditas ordinatasque ad sua quasque officia must be himself without mind. This ascription of “mind,” however, he tacitly negates in Leviathan, ch. xi, and De Corpore Politico, pt. ii, c. 6. ↑
15 De Corpore, pt. ii, c. 8, § 20. ↑
16 Cp. Bentley’s letter to Bernard, 1692, cited in Dynamics of Religion, pp. 82–83. ↑
17 Leviathan, pt. i, ch. vi. Morley’s ed. p. 34. ↑
18 Leviathan, pt. iii, ch. xxxiii. ↑
20 On this see Lange, Hist. of Materialism, sec. iii, ch. ii. ↑
21 Molyneux, an anti-Hobbesian, in translating Hobbes’s objections along with the Meditations (1680) claims that the slightness of Descartes’s replies was due to his unacquaintance with Hobbes’s works and philosophy in general (trans. cited, p. 114). This is an obviously lame defence. Descartes does parry some of the thrusts of Hobbes; others he simply cannot meet. ↑
22 E.g., Leviathan, pt. iv, ch. xlvii. ↑
23 Kuno Fischer, Descartes and his School, pp. 232–35. Cp. Bentley, Sermons on Atheism (i.e., his Boyle Lectures), ed. 1724, p. 8. ↑
24 Hobbes also was of Mersenne’s acquaintance, but only as a man of science. When, in 1647, Hobbes was believed to be dying, Mersenne for the first time sought to discuss theology with him; but the sick man instantly changed the subject. In 1648 Mersenne died. He thus did not live to meet the strain of Leviathan (1651), which enraged the French no less than the English clergy. (Croom Robertson’s Hobbes, pp. 63–65.) ↑
25 Hobbes lived to see this law abolished (1677). There was left, however, the jurisdiction of the bishops and ecclesiastical courts over cases of atheism, blasphemy, heresy, and schism, short of the death penalty. ↑
26 Croom Robertson, Hobbes, p. 196; Pepys’s Diary, Sept. 3, 1668. ↑
27 Leviathan, ch. ii; Morley’s ed. p. 19; chs. xiv, xv, pp. 66, 71, 72, 78; ch. xxix, pp. 148, 149. ↑
28 Leviathan, chs. xv, xvii, xviii. Morley’s ed. pp. 72, 82, 83, 85. ↑
29 “For two generations the effort to construct morality on a philosophical basis takes more or less the form of answers to Hobbes” (Sidgwick, Outlines of the History of Ethics, 3rd ed. p. 169). ↑
30 As when he presents the law of Nature as “dictating peace, for a means of the conservation of men in multitudes” (Leviathan, ch. xv. Morley’s ed. p. 77). ↑
31 See the headings, Council, Religion, etc. ↑
32 G. W. Johnson, Memoirs of John Selden, 1835, pp. 348, 362. ↑
35 G. W. Johnson, pp. 258, 302. ↑
36 Id. p. 302. Cp. in the Table Talk, art. Trinity, his view of the Roundheads. ↑
37 Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson, ed. 1810, i, 181. Cp. i, 292; ii, 44. ↑
38 Cp. Overton’s pamphlet, An Arrow against all Tyrants and Tyranny (1646), cited in the History of Passive Obedience since the Reformation, 1689, i, 59; pt. ii of Thomas Edwards’s Gangræna: or a Catalogue and Discovery of many of the Errours, Heresies, Blasphemies, and pernicious Practices of the Sectaries of this time, etc., 2nd ed. 1646, pp. 33–34 (Nos. 151–53). ↑
39 Lords Journals, January 16, 1645–1646; Gangræna, as cited, p. 150; cp. Gardiner, Hist. of the Civil War, ed. 1893, iii, 11. ↑
40 Green, Short Hist. ch. viii, § 8, pp. 551–52; Gardiner, Hist. of the Civil War, iv, 22. ↑
42 In 1644 he had been imprisoned at Bury St. Edmunds for “dipping” adults, and after six months’ durance had been released on a recantation and promise of amendment. Gangræna, as cited, pp. 104–105. ↑
43 Rev. James Cranford, Hæreseo-Machia, a Sermon, 1646, p. 10. ↑
45 Cranford, as cited, p. 11 sq. ↑
46 See G. P. Gooch’s Hist. of Democ. Ideas in England in the 17th Century, 1898, ch. vi. ↑
48 In the British Museum copy the name Richardson is penned, not in a contemporary hand, at the end of the preface; and in the preface to vol. ii of the Phenix, 1708, in which the treatise is reprinted, the same name is given, but with uncertainty. The Richardson pointed at was the author of The Necessity of Toleration in Matters of Religion (1647). E. B. Underhill, in his collection of that and other Tracts on Liberty of Conscience for the Hanserd Knollys Society, 1846, remains doubtful (p. 247) as to the authorship of the tract on hell. ↑
49 The fourth English edition appeared in 1754. ↑
50 Gangræna, ep. ded. (p. 5). Cp. pp. 47, 151, 178–79; and Bailie’s Letters, ed. 1841, ii, 234–37; iii, 393. The most sweeping plea for toleration seems to have been the book entitled Toleration Justified, 1646. (Gangræna, p. 151.) The Hanserd Knollys collection, above mentioned, does not contain one of that title. ↑
53 Id. p. 15. As to other sects mentioned by him cp. Tayler, p. 194. ↑
54 On the intense aversion of most of the Presbyterians to toleration see Tayler, Retrospect of Relig. Life of Eng. p. 136. They insisted, rightly enough, that the principle was never recognized in the Bible. ↑
55 See the citations in Buckle, 3-vol. ed. i, 347; 1-vol. ed. p. 196. ↑
56 Alex. Ross, Pansebeia, 4th ed. 1672, p. 379. ↑
57 Cp. the present writer’s Buckle and his Critics, 1895, ch. viii, § 2. ↑
59 Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson, 3rd ed. i, 200. ↑
60 Heresiography: The Heretics and Sectaries of these Times, 1614. Epist. Ded. ↑
61 Discourse, ed. 1857, p. 226. ↑
62 Dr. J. Brown’s pref. to ed. of 1857, p. xxii. ↑
63 More, Collection of Philosophical Writings, 4th ed. 1692, p. 95. ↑
64 Fabricius, Delectus Argumentorum et Syllabus Scriptorum, 1725, p. 341. ↑
65 No copy in British Museum. ↑
66 Urwick, Life of John Howe, with 1846 ed. of Howe’s Select Works, pp. xiii, xix. Urwick, a learned evangelical, fully admits the presence of “infidels” on both sides in the politics of the time. ↑
67 Discourse Concerning Union Among Protestants, ed. cited, pp. 146, 156, 158. In the preface to his treatise, The Redeemer’s Tears Wept over Lost Souls, Howe complains of “the atheism of some, the avowed mere theism of others,” and of a fashionable habit of ridiculing religion. This sermon, however, appears to have been first published in 1684; and the date of its application is uncertain. ↑
68 Wallace, Antitrinitarian Biography, Art. 285. ↑
69 The preface begins: “It is neither to satisfie the importunity of friends, nor to prevent false copies (which and such like excuses I know are expected in usual prefaces), that I have adventured abroad this following treatise: but it is out of a just resentment of the affronts and indignities which have been cast on religion, by such who account it a matter of judgment to disbelieve the Scriptures, and a piece of wit to dispute themselves out of the possibility of being happy in another world.” ↑
70 See bk. ii, ch. x. Page 338, 3rd ed. 1666. ↑
71 Cp. Glanvill, pref. Address to his Scepsis Scientifica, Owen’s ed. 1885, pp. lv–lvii; and Henry More’s Divine Dialogues, Dial. i, ch. xxxii. ↑
72 Cp. Lecky, Rationalism in Europe, i. 109. ↑
73 The Reformed Pastor, abr. ed. 1826, pp. 236, 239. ↑
74 Work cited, ed. 1667, p. 136. The proposition is reiterated. ↑
76 Reasons of the Christian Religion, pp. 388–89. ↑
77 Religio Stoici, Edinburgh, 1663. p. 19. The essay was reprinted in 1665, and in London in 1693 under the title of The Religious Stoic. ↑
84 This last is interesting as a probable echo of opinions he had heard from some of his older contemporaries: “Opinion kept within its proper bounds is an [ = the Scottish “ane”] pure act of the mind; and so it would appear that to punish the body for that which is a guilt of the soul is as unjust as to punish one relation for another” (pref. pp. 10–11). He adds that “the Almighty hath left no warrand upon holy record for persecuting such as dissent from us.” ↑
85 Reason: an Essay, ed. 1690, p. 21. Cp. p. 152. ↑
86 Id. p. 82. It is noteworthy that Mackenzie puts in a protest against “implicit Faith and Infallibility, those great tyrants over Reason” (p. 88). But the essay as a whole is ill-planned and unimpressive. ↑
87 Work cited, 2nd ed. pt. ii, pp. 106–15. ↑
88 Cp. Dynamics of Religion, pp. 86–87, 89–90. This explanation is also given by Bishop Wilkins in his treatise on Natural Religion, 7th ed. p. 354. ↑
89 Replying to Herbert’s De Veritate, which he seems not to have read before. ↑
90 Pref. to Obs. upon the United Prov. of the Netherlands, in Works, ed. 1814, i, 36. ↑
91 Cp. Dynamics of Religion, pp. 87, 94–98, 111, 112. ↑
92 As to the religious immoralism see Mosheim, 17 Cent. sec. ii, pt. ii, ch. ii, § 23, and Murdock’s notes. ↑
93 Compare the picture of average Protestant deportment given by Benjamin Bennet in his Discourses against Popery, 1714, p. 377. ↑
94 More, Coll. of Philos. Writings, 4th ed. 1712, gen. pref. p. 7. ↑
95 Compare some of the extracts in Thomas Bennet’s Defence of the Discourse of Schism, etc., 2nd ed. 1704, from the sermons of R. Gouge (1688). The description of men as “mortal crumbling bits of dependency, yesterday’s start-ups, that come out of the abyss of nothing, hastening to the bosom of their mother earth” (work cited, p. 93) is a reminder that the resonant and cadenced rhetoric of the Brownes and Taylors and Cudworths was an art of the age, at the command of different orders of propaganda. ↑
96 Cited by Bonnet, A Defence of the Discourse of Schism, etc., as cited, p. 41. ↑
97 Thus Henry More’s biographer, the Rev. Richard Ward, says “the late Mr. Chiswel told a friend of mine that for twenty years together after the return of King Charles the Second the Mystery of Godliness, and Dr. More’s other works, ruled all the booksellers in London” (Life of More, 1710, pp. 162–63). We have seen the nature of some of More’s “other works.” ↑
98 The Reasonableness of Scripture Belief, 1672, Epist. Ded. ↑
99 Rep. 1675; 2nd ed. 1691; rep. in the Phœnix, vol. ii, 1708; 3rd ed. 1736. ↑
100 A very hostile account of him is given in Dict. of Nat. Biog. He was, however, the friend of Cowley, and the “M. Clifford” to whom Sprat addressed his sketch of Cowley’s Life. He was also a foe of Dryden—the “malicious Matt Clifford” of Dryden’s Sessions of the Poets; and he attacked the poet in Notes on Dryden’s Poems (published 1687), and is supposed to have had a hand in the Rehearsal. He was befriended by Shaftesbury. ↑
101 Tract. Theol. Polit. c. 15. ↑
102 Wood, Athenæ Oxonienses, ii, 381–82; Granger, Biog. Hist. of England, 5th ed. v, 293. ↑
103 Johnson’s Life of Dr. Watts, 1785, App. i. ↑
104 Toulmin, Hist. of the Prot. Dissenters, 1814, citing Johnson’s Life of Dr. Watts. ↑
105 It has been suggested that this was really written by Clifford, for posthumous publication. The humorous sketch of “His Character” at the close, suggesting that his vices seem to the writer to have outweighed his virtues, hints of ironical mystification. ↑
106 Work cited, pp. 10, 14, 30, 55. ↑
107 Dr. Urwick, Life of Howe, as cited, p. xxxii. ↑
108 A Demonstration of the Divine Authority of the Law of Nature and of the Christian Religion, by Samuel Parker, D.D., 1681, pref. The first part of this treatise is avowedly a popularization of the argument of Cumberland’s Disquisitio de Legibus Naturæ, 1672. Parker had previously published in Latin a Disiputatio de Deo et Providentia Divina, in which he raised the question, An Philosophorum ulli, et quinam Athei fuerunt (1678). ↑
109 Work cited, 2nd ed. 1682, pp. 32, 38–40, 45–48. ↑
112 Twelve Sermons Preached upon Several Occasions, 1692, pp. 438–39. ↑
113 This has been ascribed, without any good ground, to Charles Blount. It does not seem to me to be in his style. ↑
114 Premonition to the Candid Reader. ↑
116 Pamphlet cited, pp. 20, 21. ↑
118 Concerning whom see Macaulay’s History, ch. xix, ed. 1877, ii, 411–12—a very prejudiced account. Blount is there spoken of as “one of the most unscrupulous plagiaries that ever lived,” and as having “stolen” from Milton, because he issued a pamphlet “By Philopatris,” largely made up from the Areopagitica. Compare Macaulay’s treatment of Locke, who adopted Dudley North’s currency scheme (ch. xxi, vol. ii, p. 547). ↑
119 Bayle (art. Apollonius, note), who is followed by the French translator of Philostratus with Blount’s notes in 1779 (J. F. Salvemini de Castillon), says the notes were drawn from the papers of Lord Herbert of Cherbury; but of this Blount says nothing. ↑
120 As to these see the Dict. of Nat. Biog. The statements of Anthony Wood as to the writings of Blount’s father, relied on in the author’s Dynamics of Religion, appear to be erroneous. Sir Thomas Pope Blount, Charles’s eldest brother, shows a skeptical turn of mind in his Essays (3rd ed. 1697, Essay 7). Himself a learned man, he disparages learning as checking thought; and, professing belief in the longevity of the patriarchs (p. 187), pronounces popery and pagan religion to be mere works of priestcraft (Essay 1). He detested theological controversy and intolerance, and seems to have been a Lockian. ↑
121 All that is known of this tragedy is that Blount loved his deceased wife’s sister and wished to marry her; but she held it unlawful, and he was in despair. According to Pope, a sufficiently untrustworthy authority, he “gave himself a stab in the arm, as pretending to kill himself, of the consequence of which he really died” (note to Epilogue to the Satires, i, 123). An overstrung nervous system may be diagnosed from his writing. ↑
122 Boyle Lectures on Atheism, ed. 1724, p. 4. ↑
123 Reflexions upon the Books of the Holy Scriptures to establish the Truth of the Christian Religion, by Peter Allix, D.D., 1688, i, 6–7. ↑
124 As cited by Leslie, Truth of Christianity Demonstrated, 1711, pp. 17–21. ↑
125 Characteristics, ii, 263 (Moralists, pt. ii, § 3). One of the most dangerous positions from the orthodox point of view would be the thesis that while religion could do either great good or great harm to morals, atheism could do neither. (Bk. I, pt. iii, § 1.) Cp. Bacon’s Essay, Of Atheism. ↑
126 Blount, after assailing in anonymous pamphlets Bohun the licenser, induced him to license a work entitled King William and Queen Mary Conquerors, which infuriated the nation. Macaulay calls the device “a base and wicked scheme.” It was almost innocent in comparison with Blount’s promotion of the “Popish plot” mania. See Who Killed Sir Edmund Godfrey Berry? by Alfred Marks. 1905, pp. 133–35, 150. ↑
127 See the text in Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner’s Penalties upon Opinion, pp. 19–21. Macaulay does not mention this measure. ↑
128 The Act had been preceded by a proclamation of the king, dated Feb. 24. 1697. ↑
129 As to an earlier monopoly of the London booksellers, see George Herbert’s letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to Bacon, Jan. 29, 1620. In Works of George Herbert, ed. 1841, i. 217–18. ↑
130 See Locke’s notes on the Licensing Act in Lord King’s Life of Locke, 1829, pp. 203–206; Fox Bourne’s Life of Locke, ii. 313–14; Macaulay’s History, ii, 504. ↑
131 Trinius, Freydenker-Lexicon, 1759, p. 120; Pünjer, i, 291, 300–301. Browne was even called an atheist. Arpe, Apologia pro Vanino, 1712, p. 27, citing Welschius. Mr. A. H. Bullen, in his introduction to his ed. of Marlowe (1885, vol. i, p. lviii), remarks that Browne, who “kept the road” in divinity, “exposed the vulnerable points in the Scriptural narratives with more acumen and gusto than the whole army of freethinkers, from Anthony Collins downwards.” This is of course an extravagance, but, as Mr. Bullen remarks in the Dict. of Nat. Biog. vii, 66, Browne discusses “with evident relish” the “seeming absurdities in the Scriptural narrative.” ↑
132 Browne’s Annotator points to the derivation of his skepticism from “that excellent French writer Monsieur Mountaign, in whom I often trace him” (Sayle’s ed. 1904, i, p. xviii). ↑
138 Here we have a theorem independently reached later (with the substitution of Nature for God) by Mary Wollstonecraft and Tennyson in turn. Browne cites yet another: “that he looks not below the moon, but hath resigned the regiment of sublunary affairs unto inferior deputations”—a thesis adopted in effect by Cudworth. ↑
139 By an error of the press, Browne is made in Mr. Sayle’s excellent reprint (i, 108) to begin a sentence in the middle of a clause, with an odd result:—“I do confess I am an Atheist. I cannot persuade myself to honour that the world adores.” The passage should obviously read: “to that subterraneous Idol (avarice) and God of the Earth I do confess I am an Atheist,” etc. ↑
140 Hutchinson, Histor. Essay Conc. Witchcraft, 1718, p. 118; 2nd ed. 1720, p. 151. ↑
141 Cp. Whewell, Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy, ed. 1862, p. 33. ↑
142 Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1889, pref. p. vi; Rev. Dr. Duff, Hist. of Old Test. Criticism, R. P. A. 1910, p. 113. ↑
143 This appears again, much curtailed and “so altered as to be in a manner new,” in its author’s collected Essays on Several Important Subjects in Religion and Philosophy (1676), under the title Against Confidence in Philosophy. ↑
144 See the Humane Nature (1640), ch. iv, §§ 7–9. ↑
145 Scepsis Scientifica, ch. 23, § 1. ↑
146 See the passages compared by Lewes, History of Philosophy, 4th ed. ii, 338. ↑
147 In his Blow at Modern Sadducism (4th ed. 1668), Sadducismus Triumphatus (1681; 3rd ed. 1689), and A Whip to the Droll, Fidler to the Atheist (1688—a letter to Henry More, who was zealous on the same lines). These works seem to have been much more widely circulated than the Scepsis Scientifica. ↑
149 See Glanvill’s reply in a letter to a friend (1665), re-written as Essay II, Of Scepticism and Certainty: in A short Reply to the learned Mr. Thomas White in his collected Essays on Several Important Subjects, 1676. ↑
150 See the reply in Plus Ultra: or, the Progress and Advancement of Knowledge since the days of Aristotle, 1668, Epist. Ded. Pref. ch. xviii, and Conclusion. [The re-written treatise, in the collected Essays, eliminates the controversial matter.] ↑
151 First printed with Glanvill’s Philosophia Pia in 1671. Rep. as an essay in the collected Essays. ↑
152 Owen, pref. to Scepsis, pp. xx–xxii. ↑
153 Owen, pref. to ed. of Scepsis Scientifica, p. ix. ↑
154 Of whom, however, a high medical authority declares that, “as a physiologist, he was sunk in realism” (that is, metaphysical apriorism). Prof. T. Clifford Allbutt, Harveian Oration on Science and Medieval Thought, 1901, p. 44. ↑
155 Cp. Whewell, as last cited, pp. 75–83; Hallam, Literature of Europe, iv, 159–71. ↑
156 Reid, Intellectual Powers, Essay I, ch. i; Hamilton’s ed. of Works, p. 226. Glanvill calls Gassendi “that noble wit.” (Scepsis Scientifica, Owen’s ed. p. 151.) ↑
157 Poet. Works of Milton, 1874, Introd. i, 92 sq. ↑
158 Scepsis Scientifica, Owen’s ed. p. 66. In the condensed version of the treatise in Glanvill’s collected Essays (1676, p. 20), the language is to the same effect. ↑
159 J. J. Tayler, Retrospect of the Religious Life of England, Martineau’s ed. p. 204; Wallace, Antitrinitarian Biography, iii, 152–53. ↑
160 Cp. Buckle, 3-vol. ed. ii, 347–51; 1-vol. ed. pp. 196–99. ↑
161 Tayler, Retrospect, pp. 204–205; Wallace, iii, 154–56. ↑
163 Tayler, p. 221. As to Biddle, the chief propagandist of the sect, see pp. 221–24, and Wallace, Art. 285. ↑
164 Macaulay, Essay on Milton. Cp. Brown’s ed. (Clarendon Press) of the poems of Milton, ii, 30. ↑
165 Cp. Dynamics of Religion, ch. v. ↑
167 Essay, bk. iv, ch. xix. § 4. ↑
168 Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, c. 15. ↑
169 Third Letter to the Bishop of Worcester. ↑
170 Some Familiar Letters between Mr. Locke and Several of his Friends, 1708, pp. 302–304. ↑
171 Fox Bourne, Life of Locke, 1876, ii, 34. ↑
172 The first Letter, written while he was hiding in Holland in 1685, was in Latin, but was translated into French, Dutch, and English. ↑
173 Mr. Fox Bourne, in his biography (ii, 41), apologizes for the lapse, so alien to his own ideals, by the remark that “the atheism then in vogue was of a very violent and rampant sort.” It is to be feared that this palliation will not hold good—at least, the present writer has been unable to trace the atheism in question. For “atheism” we had better read “religion.” ↑
174 Second Vindication of “The Reasonableness of Christianity,” 1697, pref. ↑
175 Fox Bourne, Life of Locke, ii, 181. ↑
176 Son of the Presbyterian author of the famous Gangræna. ↑
177 Said by Carrol, Dissertation on Mr. Lock’s Essay, 1706, cited by Anthony Collins, Essay Concerning the Use of Reason, 1709, p. 30. ↑
178 Cited by Fox Bourne, Life of Locke, ii, 438. ↑
179 Whose calibre may be gathered from his egregious doctoral thesis, Concio ad clerum de dæmonum malorum existentia et natura (1700). After a list of the deniers of evil spirits, from the Sadducees and Sallustius to Bekker and Van Dale, he addresses to his “dilectissimi in Christo fratres” the exordium: “En, Academici, veteres ac hodiernos Sadducæos! quibuscum tota Atheorum cohors amicissimè congruit; nam qui divinum numen, iidem ipsi infernales spiritus acriter negant.” ↑
180 Confutation of Warburton (1757) in Extracts from Law’s Works, 1768, i, 208–209. ↑
181 Cp. the Essay, bk. i, ch. iii, § 6, with Law’s Case of Reason, in Extracts, as cited, p. 36. ↑
182 Cp. Dynamics of Religion, p. 122. ↑
183 Fox Bourne, ii, 404–405. ↑
184 An ostensibly orthodox Professor of our own day has written that Locke’s doctrine as to religion and ethics “shows at once the sincerity of his religious convictions and the inadequate conception he had formed to himself of the grounds and nature of moral philosophy” (Fowler, Locke, 1880, p. 76). ↑
185 Burnet, History of his Own Time, ed. 1838, p. 251. Burnet adds that Temple “was a corrupter of all that came near him.” The 1838 editor protests against the whole attack as the “most unfair and exaggerated” of Burnet’s portraits; and a writer in The Present State of the Republick of Letters, Jan., 1736, p. 26, carries the defence to claiming orthodoxy for Temple. But the whole cast of his thought is deistic. Cp. the Essay upon the Origin and Nature of Government, and ch. v of the Observations upon the United Provinces (Works, ed. 1770, i, 29, 36, 170–74). ↑
186 Cp. Macaulay, History, ch. ii. Student’s ed. i, 120. ↑
187 Compare his Advice to a Daughter, § 1 (in Miscellanies, 1700), and his Political Thoughts and Reflections: Religion. ↑
188 See Macaulay, ch. xx. Student’s ed. ii, 459. ↑
189 De Morgan, as cited, p. 107. ↑
190 See Brewster, ii, 318, 321–22, 323, 331 sq., 342 sq. ↑
193 Cp. De Morgan, pp. 133–45. ↑
194 Four Letters from Sir Isaac Newton to Dr. Bentley, ed. 1756, p. 25. Cp. Dynamics of Religion, pp. 97–102. ↑
198 Brewster, p. 349. See the remaining articles, and App. XXX, p. 532. ↑
200 Discourse on Tillotson and Burnet, pp. 38, 40, 74, cited by Collins, Discourse of Freethinking, 1713, pp. 171–72. ↑
201 The Brief Notes on the Creed of St. Athanasius (author unknown), printed by Thomas Firmin. Late in 1693 appeared another antitrinitarian tract, by William Freke, who was prosecuted, fined £500, and ordered to make a recantation in the Four Courts of Westminster Hall. The book was burnt by the hangman. Wallace, Art. 354. There had also been “two quarto volumes of tracts in support of Unitarianism,” published in 1691 (Dr. W. H. Drummond, An Explanation and Defence of the Principles of Protestant Dissent, 1842, p. 17). ↑
202 “Locke’s ribald schoolfellow of nearly fifty years ago” (Fox Bourne, ii, 405). ↑
204 Tayler, Retrospect, p. 226; Wallace, Antitrinitarian Biography, i, 160–69. ↑
205 Fox Bourne, ii, 405; Wallace, art. 353. ↑
207 Nelson’s Life of Bishop Bull, 2nd ed. 1714, p. 398. ↑
208 “Perhaps at no period was the Unitarian controversy so actively carried on in England as between 1690 and 1720.” History, Opinions, etc., of the English Presbyterians, 1834, p. 22. ↑
209 Cp. Dynamics of Religion, pp. 113–15—Tayler, Retrospect, p. 227. ↑
210 As to whom see Tayler, Retrospect, ch. v. § 4. They are spoken of as “the new sect of Latitude-Men” in 1662; and in 1708 are said to be “at this day Low Churchmen.” See A Brief Account of the New Sect of Latitude-Men, by “S. P.” of Cambridge, 1662, reprinted in The Phenix, vol. ii, 1708. and pref. to that vol. From “S. P.’s” account it is clear that they connected with the new scientific movement, and leant to Cartesianism. As above noted, they included such prelates as Wilkins and Tillotson. The work of E. A. George, Seventeenth Century Men of Latitude (1908), deals with Hales, Chillingworth, Whichcote, H. More, Taylor, Browne, and Baxter. ↑
211 Toulmin, Histor. View of the Prot. Dissenters, 1814, p. 270. A main ground of the offence taken was a somewhat trivial dialogue in Burnet’s book between Eve and the serpent, indicating the “popular” character of the tale. This was omitted from a Dutch edition at the author’s request, and from the 3rd ed. 1733 (Toulmin, as cited). It is given in the partial translation in Blount’s Oracles of Reason. ↑
212 See Brewster’s Memoirs of Newton, 1855, ii, 315–16, for a letter indicating Craig’s religious attitude. He contributed to Dr. George Cheyne’s Philosophical Principles of Religion, Natural and Revealed, 1705. (Pref. to pt. i, ed. 1725.) ↑
213 See the note of Pope and Warburton on the Dunciad, iv, 462. ↑
214 See arts. in Dict. of Nat. Biog. ↑
215 Reprinted at Amsterdam, 1712. ↑
218 See Christianity not Founded on Argument (by Henry Dodwell, jr.), 1741, pp. 11, 34. Waterland, as cited by Bishop Hurst, treats the terms Reasonist and Rationalist as labels or nicknames of those who untruly profess to reason more scrupulously than other people. The former term may, however, have been set up as a result of Le Clerc’s rendering of “the Logos,” in John i, 1, by “Reason”—an argument to which Waterland repeatedly refers. ↑