Chapter XIV: Part 14

But there is a deep truth in it, if we use the Christian consciousness, not to supersede scripture, but as the living corroboration and interpreter of it. The Spirit of God still works on the hearts of men morally, as upon the apostles of old; not by conferring the intellectual gift of inspiration, but in the moral gifts of penitence, of conversion, of pardon, of holiness. Holy men now feel the Spirit of God striving with them as the apostles did, and appropriate the excellence of Christianity, and feel its renovating power now as then. Therefore the attestation of these men, such as is collected by an induction founded on their biographies, to the fact that when they analyse their secret feelings with the most exact care, they recognise that the pardon which they receive is through the mercy of Christ; that their moments of most hallowed communion with the Father-spirit are when they approach the throne of mercy through the mediation and intercession of another, Christ Jesus; that the victory vouchsafed to them over temptation, is by His merits; that their heart finds no Father for one moment except through him;—this evidence, if it can be accepted, is an independent corroboration of dogmatic truth. It may be explained away, by denying the truth of their analysis, or by referring their feeling to mental association; but it cannot fail to have a persuasive force for those who have faith in the instinctive utterances of the human soul: and the reliance upon it is not more extraordinary than that on which we depend in cognate subjects like æsthetics, where the taste of practical skill is trusted. Christian consciousness thus becomes a new source of facts in theological study; the living voice of the church for illustrating and confirming in some degree the utterance of men of old, who spake that which was revealed to their souls by the inspiring Spirit.

Such are the chief steps which the history of evidences, in the contest with early heathenism, as well as in the recent struggle in Germany, seems to point out as the most likely to lead a doubter to Christ; and such the order in which the philosophical and historical evidences ought to be respectively presented, if our object be to give due heed to the desire which an inquirer evinces to appropriate the truth which he believes. Such too, if the opinion already advanced concerning the future of modern doubt be correct, seems to be the final answer which the church can give. Without undue compromise, commencing with the internal evidence, we thus lead men to the external, and make philosophy as it were the schoolmaster to lead to Christ.

The third question of those which we enumerated as likely to press upon us, viz. that which refers to the inspiration of the scriptures, requires only a few words; inasmuch as the treatment of it has already, to some extent, been implied.

This question has been elevated, since the Reformation, to an importance which it hardly possessed before. Since the authority of the Bible has been substituted for the authority of the church, it has been usual to regard the scriptures as the mode of leading men to Christ, instead of considering the knowledge of Christ received through the ministrations of the church as the clue to interpret scripture. Logically, the scripture is the rule of faith, the ground of the church’s teaching; but chronologically, the teaching of the church is the means of our knowing the scripture.(1047)

A caution hence arises, that we should not be willing to allow preliminary difficulties, which a doubter may have in reference to the scriptures, to deter us from leading him straight to Christ, and then allowing him by the light of this teaching to reconsider the question of the scripture. The difficulties will generally be found to have reference to the historical and literary portions, rather than the doctrinal, or those portions of the literature which contain the doctrinal. If indeed they refer to the doctrinal, they must be answered at the outset in the manner already shown. If however to the literary, they will be viewed in a different light, if the doubter has been brought to appreciate the central truths of Christianity, from that which they will bear if wrangled out on the threshold of his approach. In the last century indeed, the comparative importance of the doctrinal parts of scripture over the literary was so perceived, when doubts were pressed on the attention of the clergy by the pertinacity of the deist controversialists, that many of the eminent writers restricted the plenary inspiration of the scripture writers to the appropriate matter of the revelation, the supernatural communication of the miraculous system of redemption; and conceived that it was no derogation from the supreme religious authority of the sacred writers, but rather compatible with the loftiest idea of the providential adaptation of means to ends, to suppose them unassisted in literary matters, such as the transcription of genealogies, the reference to natural phenomena, or the literal exactitude of quotations. The jewel of divine truth did not, in their opinion, sparkle less brilliantly because it was handed down in a frame of antique setting. (50) In the present day there is a strong reaction in religious minds in favour of the opposite view, identical with the one held in the seventeenth century by the Puritans. The reaction is only a special instance of the general movement in favour of authority, political and ecclesiastical, which has taken a sudden advance throughout the religious part of Europe, in opposition to the subjective tendency already noticed in secular literature.(1048) This special view however is dictated by a noble motive, a watchful fear lest the loss of a single atom may weaken the whole structure. Whether it be true or not is not at present under consideration, but merely the caution which ought to be used in pressing it upon doubters at the outset of an approach to the subject of religion. If the object be really to draw them to Christ, we must become all things to all men; and, while not mutilating the heavenly message, take heed not to repel the weak believer from coming to the Saviour, by interposing unnecessary literary obstacles.

It is very common to hear or to read the dilemma put before the doubter, that he must accept everything or nothing in Christianity and the Bible.(1049) Such an alternative, though dictated by a commendable motive, is likely to prove ineffectual. The Dilemma is a form of reasoning which rarely persuades. Its object is rather to silence than to convince. It is more a trick of rhetoric than an argument of logic. It may make a person pause by showing him his apparent position; but the heart, if not the head, can always find means to escape from an alternative which it dislikes. And in this particular case the use of it involves the risk of overlooking the different degrees of importance which belong to different portions of religion, and the very different degrees or evidence on which different portions of it rest. Though the smallest circumstances in reference to it are of importance, yet it were less vital to doubt the miraculous inspiration of a genealogy than the authoritative teaching of an epistle; or to doubt the date of a book than its contents. No doubt is unimportant; but it were merely repeating the sophistry of the Stoics, in making all sins equal, to deny gradations of importance in doubts; gradations which however are not here put forward to defend eclecticism, but to enforce the lesson, that, in dealing with a doubter, the consideration of this fact must guide us in the order in which we present the evidence of different parts to his mind. It not unfrequently happens that the perusal of the holy scripture is the means of drawing a soul to Christ; the volume in its solitary majesty telling its own tale: or, to speak more reverently, applied to the heart by the Spirit of God: but generally, if a doubter’s heart be filled with historical and critical doubts, he must be led through Christ to the Bible, rather than conversely, and through the New Testament to the Old. If once he can be brought to the perception of a Saviour for sinful man, his doubts will assume a new aspect, and will adjust themselves into their true place, or perhaps find their own solution.

Yet, when we have used all methods of argument which the survey of the history has given us reason to believe may prove useful, it were affectation to conceal our belief in the perpetual operation, secret and unobserved, of an invisible monitor and persuader, the blessed Spirit of God. Though we may look to philosophy to prepare the way, by exciting an appreciation of the wants which Christianity supplies, and an apprehension of the suitability of Christianity as the perfection of our spiritual nature; we must confess that it is to the unseen leadings of the Spirit of God that we trust, to make the heart feel the truth as well as perceive it, and love as well as appreciate it. If we accept the fact of God’s interference to effect man’s salvation, and regard it as His special will to bring men to the knowledge of Christ, and trust His promise of assistance to the church,(1050) it is not enthusiasm, but the most rational faith, to expect divine assistance to attend constantly on the efforts made to spread the truth which He has been pleased to reveal; not to interfere indeed with the fixed laws of the rational faculties, but to remove prejudices of the heart which might blind the apprehension, and to hallow the soul into a temple for the enshrinement of His truth.

More especially if it be true, as we have perpetually insisted, that there is a large region for the influence of emotional causes of doubt, in addition to the intellectual, which have been the subject of our special study, we may well believe that here is a field where the Holy Spirit alone can enter, and in which He only has the power to operate. Evidence, as evidence, is apprehended and tested by the intellectual faculties; but whatever is the subtle influence, consciously or unconsciously exercised by the emotions, in a matter where the evidence is probable, not demonstrative, this offers a sphere where the help of an all-loving God may be hoped for to dissipate the alienation of prejudice or indifference. Paul may plant, and Apollos may water; but it is God that giveth the increase.

We have now considered the lessons taught by the history, both as to the moral function of free thought, the forms of it which are most likely to meet Christians in the present day, and the means which seem most useful for guiding a doubter into truth.

-------------------------------------

The history may teach a final lesson to us as Christian students, not so much in reference to leading others to truth, as in relation to the means by which we can attain it ourselves.

In all the days of peril through which the church has passed, the means used by those who have striven to find the truth, and become a blessing to the world, have been,—study and prayer. In the solitude of their own hearts, by quiet meditation, they have sought to understand the utterance of the inspired volume; and to secure by prayer the illuminating influence of the divine Spirit, to cause them to behold wondrous things in God’s law.(1051) And thus in an age of coldness they have kept the flame of divine love burning with unextinguished glory on the altar of their hearts; and in an age of questioning have been able to burst forth from their prison-house of doubt, and gaze with the clearness of unclouded faith on the truth once for all delivered to the saints. If, in the dark night of doubt or sin which has spread its veil over the world, there have been stars that have shown to the pilgrim steadier and clearer light than the other luminaries of the heavens, the cause has been that they have reflected some rays of the Divine glory, which had been concentrated in the sunlike brightness of the apostolic inspiration.

If we have found that the present age offers its peculiar intellectual trials; and if we feel ourselves set in the midst of so many and great dangers; let us not be paralysed by the consciousness of them, so as to deem the search for truth unimportant, or anticipate that it will be unsuccessful; but rather be led to increased energy in striving to follow the example of those who have overcome by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony.(1052) Let us realise the solemnity of our position as responsible and immortal beings. We are creatures of a day, soon to pass into eternity; placed here to prepare ourselves for that unknown world into which we shall carry the moral character that has been stamped upon us here; and capable, whilst we are here, of doing untold good by a godly example, or of contributing to the ruin of the souls of our fellow men. How important, both for ourselves and others, that we should learn and appropriate that truth which is to be the means of our salvation! how important for ourselves, lest we be castaway! how important for others, lest we help them to build a structure of wood, hay, stubble,(1053) which shall be consumed in the day of the Lord!

Let us strive to use the two methods of finding truth,—study and prayer. Let us gain more knowledge, and consecrate it to the investigation of the highest problems of life and of religion; especially applying ourselves, by the help of the ripest aid which miscellaneous literature or church history can afford us, to the study of the sacred scriptures. But above all these intellectual instruments, let us add the further one of prayer. For prayer not only has a reflex value on ourselves, purifying our hearts, dispersing our prejudices, hushing our troubled spirits into peace; but it acts really, though mysteriously, on God. It ascends far away from earth to the spot where He has His dwelling-place. The infinite God condescends to enter into communion with our spirits, as really as a man that talketh with a friend. The Saviour of pity will Himself look down upon us, and condescend to become our teacher, and give us the purity of heart which will lead us into truth. Our own trials, our own struggles for truth and holiness, the desire to know Christ and to be known by Him, will excite our deep pity for those who endure the like temptations, and prepare us for effectually ministering to the good of others. And if the struggle in our own hearts be long, and there be moments when we seem to have our Gethsemane; let us cleave the closer, with the more simple trust, to our heavenly Father; still imploring Him to grant us in this world knowledge of his truth, and in the world to come life everlasting; assured that the clouds shall one day disperse, and the vision of truth be unveiled to us in the bright light of the eternal morning.

I shall be well content that all that I have said to you be forgotten; and when these lectures take their humble place in the series of which they form a part, deriving an honour, not their own, from the great names with which they are associated, I shall be willing that they be consigned to neglect; if I can only hope that this final exhortation to prayerful study may remain fixed in the memory of any one of those that now hear these words, or may impress the mind of any chance student who, in traversing the same ground, may hereafter have occasion to peruse them, at a time perhaps when the voice that now speaks shall be hushed in the tomb, and the spirit shall have gone to its account.

-------------------------------------

The lectures are now ended. May God forgive the errors, and sanctify any truth that has been uttered to His honour! The faults are mine: the truth is His, not mine. To Him be the glory.

NOTES.

Lecture I.

Note 1. p. 3. Subdivisions Of Historical Inquiry.

A few words may explain the distinctions intended in the text.

History has been properly distinguished by Macaulay into two branches, the artistic or descriptive, and the scientific or analytic. (_Essays_, vol. i. 2, on Hallam.) If viewed in the former aspect, history aims as far as possible to reproduce what has been, to recover a picture of the past. Hence it is obedient to the two conditions which rule all art,—precise outline in details, and preservation of perspective in the combination. In the latter, theory in some slight degree steps in, but theory dictated by the instinct of taste rather than by reflection. It is in this branch, in which the historian is the critic, that the border line lies between art and science. For it is hard to measure the precise amount which is due in the appreciation of facts respectively to artistic intuition and to reflective analysis.(1054)

Supposing the facts to be thus given, it is the province of the science of history to ascertain their causes. Two living writers, Mr. Mill (_System of Logic_), and Dr. Whewell (_Philosophy of Inductive Sciences_), have given an account of the logic of science. That of the latter is more suitable to the conception which we are here forming of history; for history is exactly one of the class of sciences which he calls “Palætiological.” (vol. i. b. x.) It requires first, that we recover the record of the successive stages of facts, the narrative of the past, before searching for the causes. The causes are then to be sought by transferring backward for the explanation of the past those which are at present operating. The search will probably exhibit three successive stages in the process of examination. First, causes will be found which are the mere antecedents of the events, the mere links which connect the phenomena. Next, a cyclical law of the recurrence of the facts is perceived, such e.g. as Vico’s well-known law concerning the development of political society. Such a law as this, supposing it to hold good without exception within the limits of experience, is what Mr. Mill calls an “empirical law.” (_Logic_, vol. ii. b. iii. ch. xvi.) Next, this law must be analysed into its causes. Mr. Mill gives three forms which this third stage of analysis may assume in science. (_Id._ vol. i. b. iii. ch. xii.) Probably in history it will generally assume the one of the three in which the complex result is analysed into its simpler component elements. (_Id._ § 2.)

This inquiry would complete the study of history as a science. But when we deal with moral as distinct from material relations, we feel that there is a question of philosophy as well as science, one of ethics and metaphysics, which rises above all lower ones. We instinctively wish to measure the responsibility of the moral agents who have contributed to work out the results which have been studied. We turn to the personal and biographical question for the purpose of the ethical lesson. The theist also asks another question. Believing that nature and man are the work, direct or indirect, of a personal Creator and Governor, of infinite power and goodness, he strives to search out the purposes of Providence, hoping to find in the drama of universal history the solution of the plot which he could not expect to attain by the study of a portion of it.

Such are the ideas which are intended in the text.

Note 2. p. 4. The Comparative Study Of Religions.

The comparison of Christianity with other religions was necessarily forced upon the Christian church by contact with the heathen world.

We meet in the early fathers with two distinct opinions; the one held in the Alexandrian school, that the heathen religions were imperfect but had a germ of truth, and that philosophy was a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ; the other chiefly in the African school, that they were entire errors, and an obstacle to the conversion of mankind.

In the middle ages, contact with Mahometan life (see Lect. III. p. 88) created a sceptical mode of comparing Christianity with other creeds; circumstances compelling toleration, and toleration passing into indifference. A similar spirit is also seen in the hasty attempt of the French philosophers of the last century to resolve all religion into priestcraft.

It is only in still more recent times that the first scientific conception of a comparative study of religion arose. Even in Herder the comparison is æsthetical more than scientific, and relates to the comparison of literatures more than of religious ideas. Benjamin Constant (_De la Religion Considérée dans sa source, ses formes et ses développements_, 1824) seems to have been the first who really suggested a serious psychological examination; and hence there soon arose the idea of comparative theology analogous to comparative anatomy. His spirit has pervaded French literature subsequently. The religious speculations of the eclectic school give expression to it; e.g. Quinet (_Le Génie des Religions_, vol. i.); and the mode of contemplating religion in Renan (_Etudes de l’Histoire Religieuse_) is based upon it. Caution in using the method is necessary on the part of those who believe in the unique and miraculous character of the Jewish and Christian revelations. In Lect. III. (p. 87) we have given an enumeration of three modes; the one true, the others false; in which Christianity may be put into comparison with other creeds.

Mr. Maurice’s _Boyle Lectures on the Religions of the World_ refer to this subject; and some useful remarks exist in Morell’s _Philosophy of Religion_,(c. iii. and iv.) But the book most full of information is the interesting _Christian Advocate’s Publication_, of the late archdeacon Hardwick, _Christ and other Masters_; a work full of learning and piety, unfortunately left unfinished by the tragedy of his premature death in August 1859. In the parts published he has compared Christianity with the Egyptian and Persian religions (part iv.), with the Hindoo (part ii.), and the Chinese (part iii.); and he was preparing materials for its comparison with the Teutonic, and with those of the classic nations.

Note 3. p. 4. Zend And Sanskrit Literature.

The purpose of this note is to indicate the sources of information in reference to (1) the Zend and (2) the Sanskrit literature, for illustrating the comparative history of religion.

1. It was about the middle of the last century (1762) that Anquetil du Perron brought manuscripts to Europe from Guzerat, written in the Zend or ancient Persian tongue. For some time the relation of the language to the Sanskrit was not understood. The great scholar to whom are due both the study of the tongue and the editing of the _Yaçna_, was Eugene Burnouf. The work just named is the first of the three works which make up the _Vendidad Sadé_; parts of which possibly go back to a period almost coeval with Zoroaster, i.e. perhaps the sixth century B.C. Two other works exist for the study of the Persian theology, though much more modern in date,—the _Desatir_ of the ninth century A.D., and the _Dabistan_ of the seventeenth,—which both contain fragments of ancient traditions embedded in their texts. The _Avesta_, of which the _Vendidad_ is one of the oldest parts, has been edited by Spiegel. References to the older literature concerning it may be found in Heeren’s _History of the Asiatic Nations_, vol. i. ch. ii.

An account of the present results of comparative philology in reference to Persian is given by professor Max Müller in Bunsen’s _Philosophy of History_, vol. i. p. 110. E. T. The Persian theology brought to light by these investigations is discussed by A. Franck, in a paper, _Les Doctrines Religieuses et Philosophiques de la Perse_, in his _Etudes Orientales_, 1861; also in Dr. John Wilson’s _Parsi Religion_, 1843; Martin Haug’s _Essays on the Parsis_, 1861, founded on Burnouf’s researches; and in archdeacon Hardwick’s _Christ and other Masters_, part iv. ch. iii. (Hyde’s _Hist. Relig. Vet. Pers._ 1700, is obsolete.)

2. The Sanskrit literature has been the subject of still more careful study by a series of learned men. See Donaldson’s _Cratylus_, b. i. ch. ii. § 36. 3d ed. Nearly the whole of the literature indirectly offers materials for a history of the alteration and deterioration of religious and ethical ideas, and of the relation of schools of philosophy to a national creed preserved by the priesthood and deposited in books esteemed sacred. The literary works can be placed in their relative order, though the absence of all chronological dates from the time of the contact of the Indians with the Greeks (third century B.C.), down to the visits of the Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in the fourth and seventh centuries A.D., whose works have been translated into French by A. Remusat and Stanislas Julien,(1055) and the Mahometan histories, renders the determination of absolute dates impossible. The following are the dates approximately given for the chief works of Sanskrit literature. The _Vedas_, especially the oldest, date from B.C. 1200 to 600. The _Epic Poems_, the _Rámáyana_ and _Mahábhárata_, are perhaps of the third century B.C.; the laws of _Manu_, or more truly of the family which claimed descent from the mythical _Manu_, contain materials dating from several centuries B.C., but were put into their present form probably several centuries A.D.; the _Bhagavat Gitá_, an episode in the _Mahábhárata_ bearing traces of a Christian influence, dates some centuries A.D. The Hindu drama is perhaps subsequent to 500 A.D. The _Puránas_ carry on the literature to mediæval times. Several of the systems of philosophy were probably constructed anterior to the Christian era; but the date at which they were put into their present form is undetermined.

The earlier literature is regarded as the most valuable for the study of the growth of religious ideas and institutions. The development or deterioration may be traced from the simple nature-worship of the _Vedas_, to the accumulation of legends which disgrace the modern creed. The causes which gave birth to mythology are no longer a matter of conjecture; the study of the Sanskrit language and literature having exhibited an historical instance of it. In this way the early Sanskrit literature becomes one of the most precious treasures to the mental philosopher who approaches his subject from the historical side.

The earliest _Veda_ is in course of publication by professor Max Müller. It has been partly translated by the late professor H. H. Wilson, and wholly by Langlois. Mr. M. Müller has given the results of his studies of this early literature in his admirable work, the _History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature_, 1859; which is full of instruction for the philosopher who is inquiring concerning intellectual and religious history. Most of the other works named above have also been translated into European languages, viz. the _Epic Poems_,—the _Rámáyana_, in Italian by Gorresio, and in French by H. Fauche, 1854; and _Episodes_ from the _Mahábhárata_ by P. E. Foucaux, 1862;—also the _Laws of Manu_,(1056) in English by Sir W. Jones, and in French by A. Loiseleur Des-Lonchamps; the _Bhagavat Gitá_ by Wilkins, 1809, the text of which was edited by Schlegel, 1823; the 2d ed. by C. Lassen, 1846. One of the _Puránas_ (the _Vishnu_) has been translated by Wilson; and part of the _Bhagavat_ by Burnouf, who has also edited the text.

Concerning the systems of Hindu philosophy; see Ritter’s _History of Philosophy_, E. T. vol. iv. b. xii. ch. v; Archer Butler’s _Lectures on Philosophy_, vol. i. p. 243 seq.; Colebrooke’s _Essays on the Philosophy of the Hindus_, 1837; _Aphorisms of Hindu Philosophy_, printed under the care of Dr. Ballantyne for the Benares government college; and Dr. R. Williams’s _Christianity and Hinduism_, 1856. The work of the late archdeacon Hardwick, _Christ and other Masters_, also contains a brief account of three of the systems of philosophy, the _Vedánta_, founded on the sacred books, the _Sánkhya_ or atheistic, and the _Yoga_ or mystic, together with a comparison of them with Christianity (part ii.). An explanation of a part of the _Nyáya_ or Logical Philosophy, is given by Max Müller in the Appendix to Dr. Thomson’s _Outlines of the Laws of Thought_, 3d ed.

On the system of thought in Buddhism, on which the study of the Páli has thrown light, consult E. Burnouf’s _Introduction à l’Histoire du Buddhisme Indien_; and Spence Hardy’s _Manual of Budhism_, 1853. Also archdeacon Hardwick’s work above named. The Hindu history, exhibiting its double movement, of philosophy on the one hand and of the Buddhist reformation on the other, has been thought to offer a distant analogy to the mental history of Europe in the double movement of the scholastic philosophy and the reformation.

The celebrated works of C. Lassen, _Indische Alterthumskunde_, 1844-47, and A. Weber, _Indische Studien_, 1850, are well known as sources of information in reference to the general subject. Also Dr. J. Muir has lately published (1858) _Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and Progress of the Religion and Institutions of India_. Several articles in reviews have appeared which contain much popular information; e.g. in the _North British Review_, Nov. 1858; _Westminster Review_, April 1860; _Edinburgh Review_, Oct. 1860. On the general subject of this note compare also Quinet, _Œuvres_, t. i. 1. 2, 3.

Note 4. p. 12. The Controversy Between Christians And Jews.

The history of the controversy of Christianity with Judaism is so connected in the writings of the early apologists with the contemporaneous one directed against Paganism, and in recent times so related in one of its aspects to rationalism, that these reasons seem sufficient, independently of the literary interest, to justify the insertion of a brief notice of it, and of the sources of information with respect to it.

The controversy with the Jew varies in different ages. We can distinguish three separate phases; (1) that which is seen in the early centuries, (2) in the middle ages, and early modern times, (3) the position which is taken up by the educated Jew at the present day. The sources for understanding the contest are, partly the Jewish writings, and partly those of Christians who have written against them.

1. In the early ages the controversy merely turned upon the question whether Jesus was the Christ. The Jews did not deny the fact of the Christian miracles, but explained them away; and the controversy accordingly turned on the interpretation of Jewish prophecy. This phase of the contest is seen in the New Testament, in the Apology of Justin Martyr against Trypho, to which a new kind of objection expressive of prejudice is added in the discourse which Celsus, as preserved in Origen (_Contr. Cels._ b. i. and ii.), puts into the mouth of the Jew whom he introduces. In reference to it, the commentators on these fathers, and especially Semisch’s work on Justin Martyr (translated), and the works on the Jewish Talmudic literature and philosophy, may be consulted. The contest is continued at intervals in treatises by inferior writers; an account of which may be found in the sources of information hereafter given, and in _Hagenbach’s Dogmengesch._ § 144.

2. The second phase of the contest is seen in the middle ages, and in modern times till about 1700 A.D. It is marked by two lines of thought on the part of the Jewish writers; a system of defence of their own tenets by a method of scriptural interpretation; and the attack of calumny or of argument against Christianity. The former existed especially in Moorish Spain about the twelfth century, the golden age of Jewish literature. For a brief account of the theological literature of the Jewish nation at that time, and in the period which had intervened since the early ages, the writer may be permitted to refer to one of his own Sermons, and the references there given (_Science in Theology_, 1859, Sermon IV.); to which references add Beugnot’s _Les Juifs d’Occident_, 1820, and the new work of De Los Rios on _Spanish Literature_. The movement included both a philosophical side in Maimonides, and a critical in Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, &c.

The other movement, which was hostile to Christianity, was marked by a series of works, written by Jews for their own nation, and carefully hidden from the sight of Christians, probably for fear of persecution and suffering; which were given to the world by the learning of the foreign Hebrew scholars of the seventeenth century. The chief of these works are, the _Nizzachon Vetus_ of the twelfth century, first published in Wagenseil’s _Tela Ignea Satanæ_, 1681. In the thirteenth, the _Disputatio Jechielis cum Nicholao_, _Disputatio Nachmanidis cum fratre Paolo_, and the celebrated _Toldos Jeschu_ or Jewish view of Christ’s life. About 1399 the Rabbin Lipmann wrote the second book _Nizzachon_, which was published by Hackspan, 1644; and also the _Carmen Memoriale_; and about 1580(1057) the Rabbin Isaac wrote the noted _Chissuk Emuna_, or _Munimen Fidei_. All these (with the exception of the second _Nizzachon_) are contained in Wagenseil. During the period one important defence of Christianity against the Jews appeared, the _Pugio Fidei_ by Raymund Martin, in Arragon, about 1278, which has been edited with an introduction by De Voisin 1651, and by Carpzov. Another defence was by Alphonso de Spina. _Fortalitium Fidei contra Judæos, Saracenos_, 1487. In Eichhorn’s _Geschichte __ der Literatur_, vol. vi. 26, another treatise is named by a writer called Hieronymus, 1552.

During the period just considered the contest with the Jews was carried on chiefly in Spain, or the few Jewish settlements of Lithuania. Henceforth it is chiefly seen in Germany and Holland, where the learned Dutch and German theologians of the seventeenth century were brought into contact with them, or were attracted to the study of the controversy by an interest in the newly awakened taste for Hebrew learning. This age supplies works of great value in gaining a knowledge of Jewish literature, some of which will be named below, and a few treatises, such as, one by Micrælius (_De Messiâ_, 1647); a brief notice by Hoornbeek, _Summa Controv._ 1653 (p. 65); an unfinished treatise by Hulsius, _Theologia Judaica_, 1653; and one by Cocceius, _Jud. Respons. Consid._ 1662. The activity of the Jews is seen in the fact that an unfair attack by Bentz, 1614, was answered in the _Theriaca Judaica_ of the Jew Salomo Zebi, Hanover 1615, which again met with a Christian respondent in Wulferus, 1681. Also Limborch had a dispute with a Jew in his _Amica Collatio cum Erudito Judæo_ (Dr. Orobius), 1687. The controversy continued through the eighteenth century, probably outlasting its cause; for defences on the side of the Jews ceased. We meet with two works by Difenbach, _Judæus Convertendus_, 1696, and _Judæus Conversus_, 1709; Calvoer’s _Gloria Christi_, 1710; Mornæus’ _De Verit. Relig. Christianæ_, 1707; and, in England, Bp. Kidder’s and Dr. Stanhope’s _Boyle Lectures_, the former of which was the basis of the treatise, _The Demonstration of the Messias_, 1700; and C. Leslie’s _Short Method with the Jews_. Catalogues of the writings, of which the above are the best known, may be found in J. A. Fabricius’s _Biblioth. Græc._ (ed. 1715), vii. 125; and _De Verit. Relig. Christianæ_, 1725, ch. xxxi; and _Blasphemia Judæorum_, Id. ch. xxxvii; Walch’s _Biblioth. Theol. Selecta_, vol. i. c. v. sect. 8. (1757); also in Bartollocci’s _Dictionary of Jewish Authors_, 1678, and Imbonati’s _Dictionary of Christian Writers_ concerning the Jews, 1694; and especially in Wolff’s _Biblioth. Hebr._, 1715, and De Rossi’s _Dizionario degli Autori Ebrei_, 1802. For information concerning sources of Jewish theology and literature, it is enough to cite Hottinger’s _Historia Orientalis_, Carpzov’s _Introductio_, and Owen’s _Prelim. Exercitationes_.

3. In the third phase of the controversy, viz. that which exists with the modern Jew, the controversy is a little changed. The old prejudices against Christianity are in a great degree made obsolete by the freedom of commercial intercourse, and the enjoyment of protection and civil liberty; and hence the contest takes two forms; either the continuation of the argument concerning the meaning of Jewish prophecy, or a discussion on the function of the Jewish religion in history. Sources for the former are found in the older books of evidence. A digest of the arguments concerning it is given in J. Fabricius (not the celebrated Fabricius), _Consideratio Variarum Controversiarum_, 1704, p. 41, and in Stapfer’s _Institut. Theolog. Polemic_, vol. iii. 1-288, 1752; or in the modern works, Greville Ewing’s _Essays addressed to the Jews_, and Dr. McCaul’s _Old Paths_, 1837, and his _Warburton Lectures_, 1846. The condition of Jewish life and thought may he seen in Allen’s _Modern Judaism_. The system of interpretation on which the controversy is conducted is either the ancient Messianic and allegorical of the Targums and Talmud, or the literal and grammatical introduced by the Spanish mediæval commentators.(1058)

The other form of Jewish argument which Christians have to encounter is more novel, and, being confined to educated Jews, its influence is less wide, and does not actuate the stratum of Jewish life with which missionaries generally come into contact. It is based on modern rationalist speculations, and is seen in a work of Dr. Philippsohn, late rabbin at Magdeburg, _Development of the Religious Idea in Judaism, Christianity, and Mahometanism_, (translated both into English 1855, and also into French,) and in the writings of Salvador. Dr. Philippsohn regards the mission of Judaism to be, from first to last, to teach to the world the lesson of monotheism. He traces the struggle in the Jewish church between priestism and prophetism; and regards Christianity as an abnormal form of the latter, which has led the world away to Tritheism: and, so far from regarding the office of Judaism to be extinct, he considers that its mission is still to restore monotheism to the world. A comparison with the statement of the views of the Tübingen school in Lect. VII. or the speculations of Mr. Mackay in Lect. VIII. will show how completely this argument is borrowed from the later forms of German historical criticism.

The views of Salvador in France (see p. 299) are too original to be regarded as typical of the views of a party. They reproduce the critical difficulties of Maimonides and Spinoza, which seem never to have found favour with the Jews; but the general similarity of the doctrinal part of Salvador’s system to that just described is very observable.

Note 5. p. 12. The Contest Of Christianity With Mahometanism.

The contest of Christianity with Mahometanism, so far as it has been a struggle of argument and not of the sword, offers few remarkable points. In the first sweep of the Mahometan conquest, when the Christian nations succumbed both in the east and west, there was no field for a question of truth. It was only in Christian nations which were removed from peril, and yet sufficiently in contact to entertain the question of the claims of the Mahometan religion, that a consideration of its nature, regarded as a system of doctrine, could arise. Accordingly it is in Constantinople, or in Spain and the other parts of western Europe which came into connexion with the Moors, that works of this character appear.

The history may be conveniently arranged in three periods, each of which is marked by works of defence, some called forth by danger, a real demand, but subsiding into or connected with inquiries prompted only by literary tastes. The first is from the twelfth to the middle of the sixteenth century; the second during the seventeenth and eighteenth; the third during the present century.

1. A notice of the Mahometan religion exists in a work of J. Damascenus, in the eighth century; and Euthymius Zigabenus, a Byzantine writer of the twelfth: but the first important treatise written directly against it was in 1210, _Richardi Confutatio_, edited in 1543 by Bibliander from a Greek copy. The refutation of Averroes by Aquinas, about 1250, can hardly be quoted as an instance of a work against the Mahometan religion, being rather against its philosophy. A treatise exists by John Cantacuzene, written a little after 1350; which is to be explained probably by the circumstance that the danger from Mahometan powers in the east directed the attention of a literary man to the religion and institutions which they professed. Thus far the works were called forth by a real demand.

A series of treatises however commences about the time of the expulsion of the Moors from Spain, the cause of the existence of which is not so easy of explanation. Such are those in Spain by Alphonso de Spina, 1487, and by Turrecremata (see Eichhorn’s _Gesch. der Lit._ vi.); by Nicholas de Cuza, published in 1543; in Italy about 1500 by Ludovicus Vives, and Volterranus; one by Philip Melancthon in reference to the reading of the Koran; and a collection of treatises, including those of Richardus, Cantacuzene, Vives, and Melancthon, published by Bibliander in 1543. Probably the first two of this list may have been the relic of the crusade of Christianity against the Moorish religion; the next two possibly were called forth by the interest excited in reference to Mahometans by reason of their conquests, or less probably by the influence of their philosophy at Padua (see Lect. III. p. 100 seq.). The two last are hardly to be explained, except by supposing them to be an offshoot of the Renaissance, and called forth by the largeness of literary taste and inquiry excited by that event.

2. When we pass into the seventeenth century, we find a series of treatises on the same subject, which must be explained by the cause just named, the newly acquired interest in Arabic and other eastern tongues. We meet however with others, called forth by the missionary exertions which had brought the Christians into contact with Mahometans in the east.

The treatise by Bleda, _Defensio Fidei Christianæ_, 1610, stands alone, unconnected with any cause. It was partly a defence of the conduct of Christians towards the Mahometans. A real interest however belongs to the work of Guadagnoli in 1631. A catholic missionary, Hieronymo Xavier, had composed in 1596 a treatise in Persian against Mahometanism, in which the general principle of theism was laid down as opposed to the Mahometan doctrine of absorption; next the peculiar doctrines of Christianity stated; and lastly, a contrast drawn between the two religions. See Lee’s _Tracts on Christianity and Mahometanism_ (below, _pref._ p. 5 seq.).

This work was answered in 1621 by a Persian nobleman named Ahmed Ibn Zain Elébidín. The line adopted by him was, (1) to show that the coming of Mahomet was predicted in the Old Testament (Hab. iii. 3); (2) to argue that Mahomet’s teaching was not more opposed to Christ’s than his was to that of Moses, and that therefore both ought to be admitted, or both rejected; (3) to point out critically the discrepancies in the Gospels; (4) to attack the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ’s deity. (Lee, _pref._ 41 seq.)

This work was answered (1631) by a treatise in Latin by P. Guadagnoli, dedicated to Pope Urban VIII. It is divided into four parts; (1) respecting the objections about the Trinity; (2) the Incarnation; (3) the authority of Scripture; (4) the claims of the Koran and of Mahomet. (Lee, _pref._ 108 seq. who also gives references (p. 113) to a few other writers, chiefly in the seventeenth century.)

The further works of defence produced in this century arose as it were accidentally. The lengthy summary of the Mahometan controversy in Hoornbeek’s _Summa Controversiarum_, 1653, p. 75 seq. was either introduced merely to give completeness to the work as a treatise on polemic, or was called forth by considerations connected with missions, as is made probable by his work _De Conversione Gentilium et Indorum_. Le Moyne’s publication on the subject in the _Varia Sacra_, vol. i. 1685, arose from the accidental discovery of an old treatise, _Bartholomæi Edess. Confutatio Hagareni_. A third work of this kind, Maracci’s _Criticism on the Koran_, 1698, arose from the circumstance that the pope would not allow the publication of an edition of the Koran, without an accompanying refutation of each part of it. The work of Hottinger (_Hist. Orient._ b. i.), Pfeiffer’s _Theol. Judaica et Mahom._ and Kortholt’s _De Relig. Mahom._ 1663, form the transition into an independent literary investigation; which is seen in the literary inquiries concerning the life of Mahomet, as well as his doctrine, in Pocock, Prideaux 1697, Reland 1707, Boulainvilliers 1730, and the translation of the Koran by Sale 1734. A slightly controversial tone pervades some of them. The materials collected by them were occasionally used by deist and infidel writers (e.g. by Chubb), for instituting an unfavourable comparison between Christ and Mahomet.

The great literary historians of that period give lists of the previous writers connected with the investigation. See J. A. Fabricius, _Biblioth. Græc._ ed. 1715, vol. vii. p. 136; Walch, _Biblioth. Theol. Sel._ vol. i. chap. v. sect. 9. A summary of the arguments used in the controversy is given in J. Fabricius, _Delectus Argumentorum_, p. 41, &c. and Stapfer’s _Inst. Theol. Polem._ iii. p. 289, &c.

3. In the present century the literature in reference to Mahometanism is, as in the former instances, twofold in kind. Part of it has been called forth by missionary contests in the east; part by literary or historic tastes, and the modern love of carrying the comparative method of study into every branch of history.

The first class is illustrated by the discussions at Shiraz in 1811, between the saintly Henry Martyn and some Persian Moollas. The controversy was opened by a tract, sophistical but acute, written by Mirza Ibrahim; (Lee, pp. 1-39); the object of which was to show the superiority of the standing miracle seen in the excellence of the Koran, over the ancient miracles of Christianity. Martyn replied to this in a series of tracts (Lee, p. 80 seq.), and was again met by Mohammed Ruza of Hamadan, in a much more elaborate work, in which, among other arguments, the writer attempts to show predictions of Mahomet in the Old Testament, and in the New applying to him the promise of the Paraclete (Lee, pp. 161-450). These tracts were translated in 1824, with an elaborate preface containing an account of the preceding controversy of Guadagnoli, by Professor S. Lee of Cambridge, _Controversial Tracts on Christianity and Mahometanism_, which is the work so frequently cited above. To complete the history it is necessary to add, that a discussion was held a few years ago between an accomplished Mahometan and Mr. French, a learned missionary at Agra.

The literary aspect of the subject, not however wholly free from controversy, was opened by White, in the _Bampton Lectures_ for 1784; and abundant sources have lately been furnished. Among them are, Sprenger’s _Life of Mahomet_, 1851, and Muir’s, 1858. Also a new translation of the Koran by the Rev. J. M. Rodwell, where the Suras are arranged chronologically. The following ought also to be added, Dr. Macbride’s _Mahometan Religion Explained_, 1857; Arnold on Mahometanism, 1859; Tholuck’s _Vermischte Schriften_, i. (1-27); _Die Wunder Mohammed’s und der Character des Religionstifters_; Dr. Stanley’s _Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church_, lect. viii. and the references there given; Maurice’s _Religions of the World_; and Renan’s _Etudes d’Histoire Religieuse_. (Ess. iv.) The modern study has been directed more especially to attain a greater knowledge of Mahomet’s life, character, and writings; the antecedent religious condition of Arabia;(1059) and the characteristics of Mahometanism, when put into comparison with other creeds, and when viewed psychologically in relation to the human mind.

The materials also for a study of the Mahometan form of philosophy, both in itself and in its relation to the religion, have been furnished by Aug. Schmoelders, _Essai sur les Ecoles Philosophiques chez les Arabes_, 1842. See also Ritter’s _Chr. Phil._ iii. 665 seq.; iv. 1-181.

Note 6. p. 12. Unitarianism.

It may be useful to indicate the chief stages of the history of Unitarianism, and the sources of information with regard to it, as it bears a close analogy to some forms of free thought, such as deism,(1060) and connects itself more or less nearly with forms of rationalism which occur in the course of the history.

The first instance of it is in the early ages, either as a Jewish Gnostic sect, Ebionitism, or in some of the other forms of Gnosticism; passing in the east into Arianism, which lowered God, and in the west into Pelagianism, which elevated man. For this period see F. Lange, _Geschichte und Lehrbegriff d. Unitarier vor d. Nicaenischen Synode_, 1831; Hagenbach’s _Dogmengeschichte_, § 23; and the church histories which treat of this period.

In the middle ages the tendency may be considered to be mainly represented by Mahometanism, and hardly exists at all in the Christian church.

Its modern form arises at the time of the Reformation.

1. Originating in Italy, it exists as a doctrine in Switzerland and Germany from 1525-1560. See F. Trechsel’s _Die Protest. Antitrinitarier vor Faustus Socinus_, 1844. The best known names are Servetus, Lelio Sozini, and Ochino.

2. It exists as a church at Racow in Poland, where the exiles found a refuge. Here Faustus Sozinus (1539-1603), nephew of Lelio, and J. Crellius, are the best known names. In 1609 Schmelz drew up the Socinian Formula, the Racovian Catechism. It was also here that the collection of Socinian writers, the _Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum_, 1626, was published. The history of the sect up to this point may be found in the Introduction to _Rees’s Translation of the Racovian Catechism_, 1818. Also see Hallam’s _History of Literature_, i. 554. ii. 335; Mosheim’s _Church History_, sixteenth century, §2. P. ii. ch. iv; Hase’s _Church History_ (Engl. Transl.), § 371, 2. The Socinians were driven out of Poland in 1658, by the influence of the Jesuits; and, passing into Holland, became absorbed in the church of the Remonstrants or Arminians.

3. The next stage of Socinianism is, as a doctrine, in England in the seventeenth century. In 1611 two persons, Hammont and Lewis, suffered martyrdom for it; and it spread widely during the Long Parliament. (See Dr. Owen’s _Vind. Evangel._ pref.) The chief teacher was J. Biddle (1615-1662). The interest of it arises from its supposed parallelism to the Arminianism of Hales in the time of Charles I, and to the latitudinarian party of Whichcote and More in that of Charles II. But the parallel is not quite correct. The study of Arminius’s writings (see J. Nicholls’s translation, 1825,) shows that he was not a Pelagian,(1061) if even his successors were. But even Episcopius and Limborch hardly reached this point. Hales resembled Episcopius. Nor is the parallel much nearer with “the latitude men;” for Socinianism lacked their Platonizing tendency. The Arian tendency, which commenced at the end of the century, both in the church, in such writers as Whiston and Clarke, and among the presbyterians, offers a nearer parallel, in being, like Socinianism, Unitarian in tendency. On this period see Hagenbach’s _Dogmengesch_. (Notes to § 234.)

4. Its next form, was as a set of congregations in England in the eighteenth century, chiefly arising out of the presbyterians; marked by great names, such as Lardner, Lowman, Priestley.(1062) Shortly before the close of the century, it was introduced into America.

5. Its last form is a modification of the old Socinian view, formed under the pressure of evangelical religion on the one side and rationalist criticism on the other. The accomplished writers, Channing in America and Mr. J. Martineau in England, are the best types of this form. Priestley, Channing, and Martineau, are the examples of the successive phases of modern Unitarianism: Priestley, of the old Socinianism building itself upon a sensational philosophy; Channing, of the attempt to gain a larger development of the spiritual element; Martineau, of the elevation of view induced by the philosophy of Cousin, and the introduction of the idea of historical progress in religious ideas. In reference to this part of the history see E. Renan’s Essay on Channing, _Etudes de l’Hist. Relig._ p. 357; E. Ellis’s _Half Century of Unitarian Controversy_ (in America), 1858; J. J. Taylor’s _Retrospect of Religious Life in England_, 1845; Dr. Beard’s _Unitarianism in its Actual State_; and other references given in the notes to H. B. Smith’s translation of Hagenbach’s _Dogmengesch_. New York, 1862. ii. p. 441.

In addition to the above references, materials for the history will be found in Sandius, _Biblioth. Antitrin._ 1684; Bock’s _Hist. Antitrin._ 1774; Otto Foch’s _Der Socinianismus_, &c. 1847; and an article in the _North British Review_, No. 60, for May 1859. The history of the controversial literature on the subject is given in Pfaff’s _Introd. in Hist. Theol. Lit._ vol. ii. p. 320 seq.; and more fully in Walch’s _Biblioth. Theol. Select._ vol. i. p. 902 seq. For a digest of the arguments used in the controversy, see Hoornbeek’s _Summa Controv._ 1653, p. 440; J. Fabricius, _Consid. Var. Controv._ pp. 99-208; and Stapfer’s _Inst. Theol. Polem._ vol. iii. c. 12.

Note 7. p. 24. Classification Of Metaphysical Inquiries.

(_a_) This first subdivision of Metaphysics into Psychology and Ontology is very neatly stated by Professor Mansel (art. _Metaphysics in Encycl. Britann._ 8th ed. p. 555, and p. 23 in the reprint of the article, 1860); Cfr. also Archer Butler’s _Lect. on Phil._ vol. i. lect. i-iii.