Chapter XVII: Part 17

Concerning this theologian, now Professor at Heidelberg, see C. Schwarz’s _Geschichte der neuesten Theologie_, p. 279 seq. The cause why the remarks in the text are so brief in regard to Rothe is, that the writer has not been able to see his more important works, which are out of print; and accordingly he derives his knowledge of him at second hand.

Rothe’s two most important works are, _Die Anfänge der Christlichen Kirche_, 1837, and _Theologische Ethic_, 1845. An account of the former is given in the often-quoted article by Scherer (_Rev. des Deux Mondes_, Feb. 15, 1861), pp. 848-860. It appears to view the Christian church from its ideal side, to absorb the individual in the constitution, to show that Christendom is the object of Christianity, an institution the great means of embodying the doctrines; but that, as society becomes fermented by its spirit, the office of Christianity is fulfilled by the state, and the beau ideal would be a society where the church is the state. It is a view similar to that of Coleridge in his _Church and State_, or of Dr. Arnold in his work on _the Church_. Mr. F. C. Cook, in _Aids to Faith_ (p. 159), has given some interesting illustrations of this point.

The second of Rothe’s works, the _Ethic_, is briefly described in a previously-cited article in the _Westminster Review_ for April, 1857. Like the former it starts with the idea of the identity of ethics and religion. Regarding personality or the moral relations as the central fact of existence, it surveys material creation under this aspect. Next it discusses the moral and religious history of man, as means of enabling the personal being to subordinate to himself all the forces without or within him. The object apparently is to show, that the spiritual element is not an intrusion, but the normal development of nature or providence; and the moral society, the State, the normal development of the religions society, the Church. Rothe’s later views have hardly been developed in system. According to him theology is theosophy; philosophy can work out a theology from the consciousness.

It is probable that the writer of these lines is unintentionally doing injustice, through having to trust to secondhand information, to one who is regarded in Germany as belonging to the highest order of scientific theologians; though perhaps the interesting account of C. Schwarz leaves little to be desired.

Rothe, in accordance with his wish to strengthen orthodox theology by an independent philosophy, and not to support it by material agency, has lately taken part politically on the liberal side, in some questions connected with the church constitution of Baden. (See Colani’s _Nouvelle Revue de la Theologie_, Aug. 1862.)

Note 41. p. 285. The Most Modern Schools Of Philosophy And Theology In Germany.

The object of this note is to carry on the history of philosophy and theology to a more recent date than was necessary in the text.

The idealist school of philosophy reached its highest point with Hegel; and subsequently there has been as great a reaction against this mode of speculation, as the contemporaneous theological one in religion.

The philosopher who was directly or indirectly the cause of the realist tendency was Herbart (1776-1841), who succeeded Kant at Königsberg, and afterwards was Professor at Göttingen. Concerning his system, see Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, ii. 206, &c. Chalybaüs, ch. iv. and v. He followed out the _material_, as distinct from the _formal_, system of the Kantian philosophy, and strove to develop it.

The schools of modern Germany may be reckoned as four:—

(1). The young Hegelian school; e.g. of the younger Fichte, which, though professedly idealistic, and adopting Hegel’s method, is really affected largely by realistic tendencies, and seeks for a philosophy of matter as well as form. See Taillandier in _Revue des Deux Mondes_ for 1853, vol. iii. p. 633; and also Oct. 1858; Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, ii. 216, &c. Kahnis, p. 252. This school manifests decidedly realistic tendencies in Kuno Fischer, Weisse, and Branis.

(2.) That which shows a tendency to approach the subject of mental phenomena from the physiological side, in Drobisch, Waitz, and Volkmann, somewhat in the manner of the English writer Herbert Spencer.

(3.) A school decidedly materialist, e.g. Vogt, Moleschott, and Büchner. See Taillandier, _Rev. des Deux Mondes_, Oct. 1858.

These three tendencies form a gradation from the ideal, and approach the real, until at last the ideal itself is destroyed. The other tendency, if such it may be called, stands apart, and is akin to the older ideal ones. It is (4.) that of Schopenhauer (1788-1860), and tries to solve the problem of existence from the side of the will, instead of the intellect, and bears a remote resemblance to that of Maine de Biran. His system has long been before the public, but since his death has been much discussed. It has been explained by Frauenstädt. It is also well described in the _Westminster Review_, April, 1853.

We now pass from the schools of philosophy to theology.

We have implied that there are three great schools of it in Germany; the Neo-Lutheran, the Mediation school, and the Tübingen; and have seen that they are each in course of transition into slightly new forms in younger hands. The “Neo-Lutheranism” has assumed a more ecclesiastical position, which has been called “Hyper-Lutheranism.” The “Mediation” school of Schleiermacher is replaced by a newer form, modified by Hegelianism in Dorner. It remains to add, that the Tübingen school is giving place to another, of which C. Schwarz himself is a representative—a kind of derivation from the Tübingen school and that of De Wette. Its organ is the _Protestantische Kirchenzeitung_; and to it are said(1070) to belong Dr. Dittenberger, court preacher at Weimar, C. Schwarz, who holds the same position at Gotha; Ellester of Potsdam, Sydow of Berlin, and Schweizer of Zurich. Their position seems to be more ethical and less evangelical than the members of the party of free thought in the protestant church of France.

Note 43. p. 289. The Modern Theology Of Switzerland And Holland.

It will be observed, that no notice has been taken in the text, of the modern theology of Switzerland and Holland. It may be desirable therefore to suggest an outline here.

THE THEOLOGY OF SWITZERLAND.—The materials for the account of it are scanty and disjointed. Since the reform of the Swiss universities during the present century, theological thought has chiefly taken the colour of the adjacent countries, Germany or France, in the respective universities where those languages are spoken. In the church of Geneva, about a quarter of a century ago, there seem to have been two parties, similar to those in the French protestant church: one professing the old Calvinistic orthodoxy, which had degenerated into semi-Socinianism; the other, the result of a revival of biblical truth and spiritual religion, under such pastors as D’Aubigné, the historian of the Reformation, and recently Gaussen, the writer on _Théopneustie_. A movement was commenced under Vinet of Lausanne, which may be considered to be the only native school which Switzerland has produced. It was a mixture of science and earnestness, founded chiefly on a combination of Pascal and Schleiermacher. Concerning Vinet, see a very just article in the _North British Review_, No. 42, August 1854; and see below, Note 46. Scherer was a friend of Vinet, but has since changed his views, or, as some would think, developed logically their results, and has long left his professorship at Geneva, and acts with the new liberal school in the French protestant church. See Note 46.

German Switzerland has been connected with Germany rather than France. The teaching at the university of Basle was moulded by De Wette, who was made professor there in 1826, a few years after his removal from Berlin. Its character, however, expressed the more orthodox and moderate views of his later years. The instructive writer Hagenbach, professor there, belongs to the “mediation school” of theology, and is a worthy representative of its learned and devout spirit. Zurich possessed a teacher, Usteri, belonging to the school of Schleiermacher; and others, whose tone rather resembled that of the critical school of De Wette, or of the Tübingen school. The well-known critics Hitzig and Knobel, were formerly its professors; and at present Schweizer is there, concerning whom see Note 41. A few years after Strauss had published his noted work, he was elected, as stated before, theological professor at Zurich, but the appointment was cancelled by a revolution of the people. See the Address of Orelli (translated 1844). The appointment of Zeller of the Tübingen school to Berne, created a similar excitement. In the proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance at Geneva, 1861, professor Riggenbach, of Basle, stated that some of the journals of eastern Switzerland adopt sceptical principles. (_News of the Churches_, Oct. 1861.) He named the _Zeit-stimmen aus der Reformirten Kirche der Schweiz_, which is edited at Winterthur by Lang, a pupil of Baur. In German Switzerland, however, as well as French, there exists a biblical school of theology; of which professor Riggenbach of Basle is an example.

THE THEOLOGY OF HOLLAND.—The sources were given above (p. 110.) for the study of Arminianism and Calvinism in the seventeenth century. The subsequent history is soon told. We omit, of course, the history of the Romish church in Holland, and of the Jansenist secession from it, which took place in 1705.

The Protestant church continued to exist in two branches; viz. the Calvinists, or established church, who professed the creed of the synod of Dort; and the Remonstrants, who professed the moderate Arminianism of Episcopius; similar to that which was taught by our own Hales and Chillingworth. The studies in the established church were specially devoted to exegesis, in reference to which the name of Schultens of Leyden, in the last century, is well known; manifesting a slight inclination to free inquiry in Van der Palm (1763-1838).

About 1830, the condition of the church was a cold orthodoxy, much like that of the “moderate” party in the church of Scotland before the rupture of 1843. The stronghold of this party was the university of Utrecht. Living isolated, and resembling the English in not easily admitting foreign influences, the Dutch read little of German literature. A periodical existed, the _Theological Contributions_, which used to bestow praises on the school of Bretschneider.

A little before 1830, a movement of evangelical piety had been kindled in the church, through the influence of the poet Bilderdyk (who died 1831), and of his two disciples, the Portuguese Jew of Amsterdam, Da Costa (who died in 1860), and Cappadose. Their position however was, a return to the rigid decrees of the synod of Dort and the theology of Calvin. They resembled very nearly the party in the church of Scotland which formed the free church. They acquainted themselves with German theology for the purpose of refuting it; and Da Costa wrote a work, _The Four Witnesses_, on the four Evangelists, in reply to Strauss; which has been translated. In 1834 they separated from the national church under two pastors, De Cock and Scholte, and endured much persecution. The _Voices of the Netherlands_ was the periodical which expressed their views. Van Oosterze, pastor at Rotterdam, belonged to them. This party has been represented in the Dutch parliament by Groen van Printsterer. It has lost its political influence in some degree in recent years, by opposing political reforms.

Almost simultaneously with this Calvinistic revival, a school arose in the university of Groningen, a “mediation” school, modelled upon Schleiermacher, under the influence of the Platonist Van Heusde (1778-1839), led by Hofstede de Groot, Pareau, and Muurling. Its organ was _Truth in Charity_. The views held were a spiritual Arianism. They may be seen in a novel published recently (1861) at Cape Town, for the Dutch colonists, entitled, _The Pastor of Vliethuizen, or Conversations about the Groningen School_, translated by Dr. Lorgian.

These three parties were the chief in Holland, until about 1850. Since then a more decided movement of free thought has begun in the university of Leyden. Up to that time the venerable Van Hengel remained there, the example of the old philological orthodoxy of Holland. Two professors have now created an independent movement, more nearly resembling that of the Tübingen school; J. H. Scholten, in dogma; and, with rather more advanced views, the orientalist H. Kuenen in philology. (A list of some of Scholten’s publications may be seen in the _Westminster Review_ for July, 1862, page 43, note. His _Hist. comparée de la Philos. et de la Relig._ was translated by Reville, in the _Nouvelle Rev. de la Theologie_, April 18.) Busker Huet has asserted still more advanced views than these, apparently simple naturalism. The Positivist philosophy has found an advocate in Opzoomer, one of the professors at Utrecht.

The sources of this account are chiefly found in Ullmann’s paper in the _Studien und Kritiken_, 1840, part iii. translated by professor Edwards, with additions, in the American _Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1845; and in an interesting article by A. Reville of Rotterdam, himself one of the liberal school of the French protestant church, in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_ for June 15, 1860. Chautepie de la Saussure, pastor of the Walloon church at Leyden, formerly of the Groningen school, has also written in French, _La Crise Religieuse en Hollande_, 1859; but it is chiefly devoted to personal questions. A sketch of the Dutch universities and their intellectual characteristics was given by Esquiros in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, 1856, vol. iii.

Note 44. p. 297. The Eclectic School Of France.

The Eclectic School is sketched in Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, vol. ii. c. viii; Damiron’s _Essai sur l’Histoire de la Philosophie en France au 19ème siècle_, 1828, pp. 280-385: Nettement’s _Histoire de la Litt. Franc. sous la Restoration_, 1853, vol. i. b. ii. p. 127 seq.; vol. ii. b. viii. p. 290 seq.; and _Hist. de la Litt. Franç. sous le Gouvernement de Juillet_, vol. i. b. vi: also in Taine’s _Philosophie Française du 19ème siècle_. The last writer is wholly unfavourable to the school, on the ground of the uselessness of metaphysical philosophy.

The eclectic school was the means of uniting together the philosophy of Scotland and Germany, which had previously been running in separate streams. The leading minds of the school have been four,—Royer Collard, Maine de Biran, Cousin, and Jouffroy.

The founder of it, R. Collard (1763-1845), was a disciple of the Scotch school, who about 1812 commenced an attack on the philosophy of Condillac, very similar to that of Reid on Hume. He devoted himself to the analysis of the intellectual and moral parts of men, in order to assert the existence of a world within, independent of sensational impressions. The next writer, Maine de Biran (1766-1824), devoted himself especially to the examination of the will and the notion of cause, and reproduced the ideas of Leibnitz. The third, Cousin (born 1792), succeeded Collard in 1815 as professor at Paris; and in his early lectures followed the Scotch school. When the conservative reaction occurred in 1822, consequent on the assassination of the duke de Berri, the constitutional party was thrown into disgrace; and Cousin therefore retired into Germany, and there imbibed the spirit of the great schools of philosophy, especially of Schelling and Jacobi. He has given, his own history in the preface to _Fragments Philosophiques_, vol. ii. Lastly came Jouffroy, the translator of Dugald Stewart, who improved upon the Scotch school. See Sainte-Beuve’s criticism on Jouffroy. (_Crit. Litt._ vol. i.)

Damiron was an admirable exponent of the eclectic school; Benjamin Constant, Degerando, and Lerminier, partially belonged to the same school. Its effects are ably stated in Morell. The delicate hand of E. Renan also has sketched the influence of _Cousin et L’école Spiritualiste_, in the _Revue des Deux Monds_, April. 1858; reprinted in his _Essais de Morale et de Critique_.

Note 45. p. 300. The Catholic Reactionary School Of France.

Concerning this school, see Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, vol. ii. pp. 274-318; Damiron (as in the last note), pp. 105-197; Nettement (second work), vol. i. b. v.

The members of this school all agree in reposing upon the principle of _authority_; but differ in the source in which they place it. Their philosophy accordingly does not aim at discovering truth, but only the authority on which we may rely as the oracle of truth.

The founder of the movement was De Maistre (1753-1821), the bitter opponent of the Baconian philosophy, whose doctrine, about the time of his death, was absolute submission to the catholic church. See concerning him C. Rémusat in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, May 1857; and E. Scherer’s _Mélanges de la Critique Religieuse_. Lamennais belonged to the same movement. In his early manner, as expressed in his _Essai sur l’Indifference_, 1821, he found the test of truth in primitive revelations transmitted by testimony; in his later, he abandoned this school, and strove to work out philosophy, in part independently of authority. The next writer, De Bonald, sought for truth in the same source, viz. fragments of divinely communicated knowledge, transmitted in the languages of mankind. On Bonald see C. Rémusat (_Revue_, as quoted above). The Abbé Bautain improved upon this system by placing the ground of certitude in the authority of Revelation, and considered the office of philosophy to end when it has shown the necessity of a revelation. Next to him came D’Eckstein, who sought the test of truth in authority based on researches into the catholic beliefs of mankind. The two latter views, it will be perceived, are far nobler than the former. Maret, whose writings have been before cited, also belongs to this reactionary school.

Note 46. p. 304. The Modern School Of Free Thought In The Protestant Church Of France.

The object of this note is to enumerate some of the chief of those theologians to whom allusion is made in the text, and to exhibit their relations to each other.

One of the best known is Colani, a pastor at Strasburg, the able editor of the _Nouvelle Revue de la Theologie_, and author of several volumes of sermons: also A. Reville, pastor of the Walloon church at Rotterdam, a frequent writer in the same Review, and in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_; Reuss, a professor at Strasburg, author of a history of the early church, in French, and _Beiträge zu den Theologischen Wissenschaften_, in German; Scherer, the friend of Vinet, once professor at Geneva, author of _Mélanges de Critique Religieuse_, reprinted mostly from Colani’s Review, of which the first four papers give his theological views on Inspiration, the Bible, and Sin.(1071)

The able critic, Michel Nicholas, professor at Montauban, author of _Etudes Critiques sur la Bible_, and _Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs pendant les deux siècles antérieurs à l’ère Chrétienne_, probably may be classed with the same; but he has not written on doctrine. A. Cocquerel _fils_, pastor at Paris, also is connected with Colani’s Review, and is considered to possess the same sympathies.

The difference of the point of view of these writers from that of the Eclectic school would be, that while the latter would regard the human race as able to pass beyond Christianity, the former would only wish to get rid of the dogmas which they think have been superadded in the course of ages, and to return to the simple teaching of the sermon on the mount.

One writer more has been reckoned with the same party by the English public, E. De Pressensé, a pastor in the free Protestant church at Paris, author of the Church History so often referred to in this volume, and of sermons on the _Sauveur_, and editor of the _Revue Chrétienne_; but he appears to possess an evangelical and more orthodox tone than some of the above.

In truth there are two distinct parties in the movement which we are describing, each of which stands in a different relation to the older parties of the protestant church. At the beginning of the century the French protestant church held an unpietistic kind of supernaturalism, not very unlike that of Reinhard in Germany, of which the best living type is the eloquent and learned A. Cocquerel _pére_. About 1820 an awakening of the spiritual life of the church took place, under the action of the Spirit of God primarily, and through the agency of such ministrations as those of Adolphe Monod instrumentally. From the former school has arisen the movement seen in Colani and Reville; from the latter, that seen in Vinet and Pressensé. The former is a change which has passed over the old Latitudinarian school, much like those which in Germany have taken the place of the teaching of such men as Reinhard and Bretschneider. Of the pastors named above, who belong to this class, A. Cocquerel _fils_ is the least removed from the ordinary creed. His stand-point may be compared to that of Schleiermacher, or of the school of Groningen. (See Note 41.) Reville and Colani advance very much farther. The other movement, of which Vinet of Lausanne was the cause, has sprung from the application of science to the newly-spreading views of evangelical religion. Vinet tried to harmonize religion and knowledge, by presenting Christianity on the ground of its internal rather than its external evidence, and proclaimed it as ethics built on doctrine; which doctrine he held to be built on historic fact. His position may be best compared with Neander’s in Germany, or perhaps in some respects with that of Tholuck. Nearly the same position is assumed by Pressensé at Paris, and Astié at Lausanne. Pressensé rests upon the Bible as the “formal principle” of theology, and the work of Christ as the “material.”

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

The writer feels much hesitation in venturing to classify these authors, which nevertheless seemed desirable on account of the spread of their writings in England. The above description, founded on personal study of their works, is confirmed by two criticisms on them; one by C. Rémusat, in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Jan. 1862; the other in the _British Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1862. But care ought to be used in describing the actors in a movement which is not complete; and in making the attempt, to distinguish especially those who are conceived to deviate from vital truth in doctrine, from those who may differ in questions of literature or criticism. It is due to these writers to express admiration for their genuine love of intellectual and political liberty, much as we may be compelled to differ from their theological opinions.

Lecture VIII.

Note 47. p. 320. Modern Opinions With Respect To Mythology.

In the last century the opinions on the nature of mythology were two. That which taught that myths are distortions of traditions derived from the early Hebrew literature, was put forward in the seventeenth century, as early as philosophy was applied to the subject, by Huet and Bossuet, and retained its hold throughout the last century, and is advocated in the present by Mr. Gladstone (Work on Homer, vol. ii. ch. ii). The opposite theory interpreted myths by an Euhemeristic process, or allegorized them by regarding them as originally descriptions of the physical processes of nature. In the present century Creuzer (_Symbolik_, 1810) applied the method of comparison, and, studying Greek mythology in correlation with that of other countries, taught in a Neo-Platonic sense that myths are a second language, the echo of nature in the consciousness. Creuzers system was opposed by Lobeck about 1824, Voss, and G. Hermann, who objected to the excess of symbolism and the sacerdotal ideas implied in it; and by Ottfried Müller, and Welcker, on the narrower ground of asserting the independence of Greek mythology from foreign influence. More recently the careful study of the Sanskrit language and early literature by Max Müller, Kuhn, &c. has thrown new light upon the subject; and the solution of the problem is now approached from the side of language, and not merely from that of tradition or monuments. The distinction of myth and legend is now clear; the family relationship between the myths of different nations is made apparent; the date in human history of their creation; and the cause of them is sought in the attempt to express abstract ideas by means of the extension of concrete terms. See the Essay on _Comparative Mythology_ by Max Müller, in the Oxford Essays for 1856. See also the Journal for Comp. Phil. of Kuhn and Aufrecht. And for a criticism on Creuzer, see E. Renan’s _Etudes d’Histoire Religieuse_ (Ess. i).

Note 48. p. 363. The External And Internal Branches Of Evidence.

It may be almost superfluous to name that the evidences are usually divided into 1. external, and 2. internal. Each of these requires a subdivision into (α) the divine, and (β) the human.

The _external divine_ are miracles and prophecy; the _external human_ are the historical proof as to the authenticity and genuineness of the literature which contains the narrative of the miracles and the prophecy. The _internal divine_ are sought in the accordance of the materials of the Revelation, the character of Christ, the scheme of Redemption, &c. with the moral sense of man, and with the expectations which we should form antecedently of the contents of a revelation; the _internal human_, in the critical evidence of undesigned coincidence. Looked at logically, the second is like the corroboration of the testimony of a witness; the fourth, like cross-examining him. The first two may amount almost to demonstration, being what Aristotle (_Rhet._ i. 2.) would call τεκμήρια: the two latter have only the force of probability; the third being antecedent probability, εἰκός; the fourth, the ἀνώνυμον σμηεῖον, or circumstantial evidence. The argument of analogy used by Butler, which may be regarded as almost(1072) one form of Aristotle’s παράδειγμα (_Rhet._ ii. 20), (if looked at on its positive side, and not merely its negative, as disproof of objections,) comes under the third, inasmuch as it offers a series of principles obtained by generalization from the natural and moral world, which furnish an antecedent presumption of the character of any revealed scheme. The remarks in the text relate to tho comparative weight to be given to the first and third of the four classes named above. The advantage of Butler’s argument over the other cases of internal _à priori_ evidence is, that it is founded on previous careful induction; the other kinds of anticipations are founded only on hasty empirical generalizations. For this view of the evidences, see Hampden’s _Introduction to the Philosophical Evidences of Christianity_; Davidson’s _Lectures on Prophecy_ (Introductory Lecture); and W. D. Conybeare’s _Lectures on Theology_, ch. i.

Note 49. p. 366. The History Of The Christian Evidences.

As frequent references have been made to the subject of apologetic in connexion with the history of free thought, it seems desirable to give a brief literary history of the Evidences, and to indicate the works where further information may be obtained with regard to them.

There are two methods of studying the subject; either to classify the Evidences in the manner of the last Note,(1073) and proceed to notice the ages in which, and the authors by whom, each portion of them has been developed, together with the causes which have called them forth; or else, to adopt the historic plan, and trace their gradual growth through the course of ages. By the latter method (if we exclude all that strictly belongs to the province of polemic as distinct from apologetic), we find the following controversies:—in the early centuries, the double contest against the Jews and against the Pagans; in the early middle ages, against the Mahometans without, and Freethinkers within, the limits of Christendom; at the Renaissance, against unbelief within the church: in more modern times, whilst the argument against the Jew has been called forth by contact with the Jewish denizens scattered through Europe, and the Mahometan has been occasionally excited by missionary labours; there has been the contemporaneous struggle within the church, against deism, atheism, and rationalism.

This history, it will be observed, is so complex, that it would be necessary to study each branch of the contest separately. Accordingly, we have treated in distinct notes the contests with the Jew (Note 4), and the Mahometan (Note 5); and there remain for study those which existed with the Pagan in the early ages, and with the various forms of scepticism in the later.

It will be convenient to classify the inquiry, under the four epochs according to which we have studied the history of unbelief in the preceding lectures; viz. (1) the contest of Christianity with Paganism; (2) with the incipient free thought of the middle ages; (8) with the unbelief of the Renaissance; and (4) with the subsequent forms of unbelief, which it may be useful to classify according to the countries where they have respectively appeared,—England, France, and Germany.

1. The apology or defence of Christianity against Pagans commences with the apostolic age.(1074) Its first form is seen in the missionary speech of St. Paul at Athens. The first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans also may be regarded as expressing the same ideas. The defence consisted in an appeal to the heart as well as to fact; to show the heathen the need of Christianity before presenting the statement of its nature, and the evidence of its divine character. In the second century, when it became gradually understood that Christianity was not a mere Jewish sect; and when the attack consisted in calumnies and persecutions, as stated in Lect. II. pp. 48, 54, the apologies especially were directed to repel the charges, or to demand toleration: (see Note 15.) In the third and fourth centuries the attack was more intelligent, and the statement of objections more definite; and the character of the apologies altered correspondingly.

There is some difficulty in arranging the early Apologies. A recent writer, Pressensé, who has made a special study of them, has used, as his fundamental principle of classification, the view which the authors took of the relation of the soul of man to Christianity; according to which he makes three classes; the first, comprising those who thought that the soul of man was fitted for truth, and acknowledged the heathen religions as a preparation for Christianity; the second, those who, taking the same view of human nature, regarded the heathen religions as corruptions, and wholly injurious; and the third, those who took such a desponding view of human nature as to regard it as possessing no truth without revelation (_Hist._ vol. ii. ser. ii. p. 164-5.) As examples of the first class, he cites Origen and most of the earlier fathers; of the second, Tertullian; of the third, Arnobius. He thinks, but perhaps hardly rightly, that the chronological order in which the three views occurred, coincides also with this mode of arrangement. It will be evident that the first two classes show an attempt to approach Christianity _à priori_, by arousing the sense of want; the last by “crushing the human soul” by authority: the first of the three trying to open the way for the reception of Christianity, by describing it as the highest philosophy and religion; the second as the substitute for both; but both schools agreeing in describing it as the satisfaction of the world’s yearnings. It will be also apparent why the presentation of the _à priori_ internal Evidences should precede the external. When the world had been impressed with the necessity of a new religion, then the opportunity came for employing the cogent power of the external and historic evidence which authenticates Christianity.

A less artificial manner however of studying the Apologies would be to view them in time, and in space; i.e. according to their date, and the churches from which they emanate, whether Syrian, Alexandrian, Roman, or African; with the view of witnessing at once the alteration in the attack and the character of the apology which existed in different countries at one and the same time.

It appears worthy of notice however, that the attempt to find difference of treatment according to difference of country almost entirely fails. If applied as a principle of classifying manuscripts, or modes of exegesis, or liturgical uses, sufficient variety is exhibited to prove that the Christian church was a collection of provincial churches, each possessing its national peculiarity, each contributing to swell the general harmony by uttering its own appropriate note; but, when applied to the subject of apologetic, the method fails to show a difference in the method of defence which was simultaneously used in the great Christian army; which forms a proof of the facility of intercourse between different churches, and of the uniformity in the character of the attack directed simultaneously on the church in different lands. The change in the character of the Evidences with the growth of time, according to the alteration of attack described above, is apparent, but not the variation at the same date in different parts of the world. We shall therefore merely present a list, in which the apologists are arranged according to place and date, without attempting to draw inferences which cannot be supported.

The recent publication of Pressensé’s work, where the spirit of the apologies is given, together with an analysis of their contents, renders it unnecessary to offer here a full analysis of them, as had been intended. Other works indeed partially supplied the need previous to his. Such, for example, were Houtteville’s Introduction to _La Religion Chrétienne prourée par des Faits_, containing an account of the authors for and against Christianity (translated 1739); Schramm’s _Analysis Patrum_, 1780; Scultetus’s _Medullœ. Patr. Syntagma_, 1631; and for the Apostolic Fathers, the Introduction to Mr. Woodham’s edition of Tertullian’s _Apology_.

It will be sufficient accordingly to give a list of the writers, with a very brief mention of the object of their treatises,(1075) and to enumerate the literary sources from which further information may be obtained in respect to them.

_Table of the Early Apologists, according to Date and Place._

A.D. Rome and Africa. Athens. Alexandria. Syria.
Western
Provinces.
150 [Aristides
130];
[Quadratus];
_Justin?_
150;
_Tatian_;
_Athenagoras_;
_Hermias?_
200 _Tertullian_; Clement 190 _Theophilus_
_Minucius 180
Felix?_
230
Cyprian; Origen 240
Commodian
300 _Arnobius_ [Methodius];
_Lactantius_ _Eusebius_
Jul. Athanasius Chrysostom
Firmicus;
Ambrose;
Prudentius
400 Orosius; _Augustin_ _Cyril_ Jerome?
Salvian Theodoret

N. B. The names in brackets are of authors whose apologies are almost wholly lost; those in italics are the ones which alone are usually mentioned in a list of apologists. To the above ought perhaps to have been added for completeness, Maternus, A.D. 350; Ephraim the Syrian; and Apollinaris of Asia Minor, who replied to Julian. The names marked with a note of interrogation denote those in reference to which the reader may demur to the classification. Justin Martyr wrote at Rome; but he wrote in Greek, and was a Greek philosopher in spirit. Of Hermias little is known. Jerome lived much in Syria, and leaned to the Syrian school of exegesis, so that he has been classed with the Syrian church, though his intimacy with Augustin and his writing in Latin might rather have caused him to be classed with the western. Also Minucius Felix ought perhaps rather to be classed with the Roman than the African church.

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

We shall next state the purpose of the treatises of those Apologists, whose names are printed in italics in the table.

The first group consists of Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Hermias, and Theophilus; the first three of whom may be considered to express the defence of Christian philosophers, who were striving to explain the nature of Christianity, partly with a view to plead for toleration, partly to make converts.

Justin has left two apologies; one against the Jews, the other against the heathens; (a second against the heathens is a fragment.) In both he adopted the same plan, of first repelling prejudices, and then assaulting his opponent. That which is directed against the Jews is analysed in Kaye’s _Justin_, c. xi. In that which was directed against the heathens, he first repelled the charges made against Christians, such as atheism, Thyestean banquets, and treason against the state; and next, those made against Christianity, especially those which related to its late introduction, the person of Christ, and the doctrine of the resurrection. In proceeding to assault heathenism, he endeavoured to show that it did not possess religious truth, and claimed that the points of agreement with Christian truth were borrowed; and after having thus shown the superiority of Christianity to heathenism, he endeavoured to show its divinity, by the internal evidence of its doctrines and effects, and by the external evidence of miracles and prophecies.

Tatian’s treatise in substance was an invective against the pagans, on the absurdity and iniquity of the pagan theology and its recent origin, with a running comparison between it and Christianity.

The object of Athenagoras was to plead for toleration; and consequently he employed himself in vindicating the Christians from various charges, such as incest, Thyestean banquets; and retaliated the charges on the heathen.

The little work of Hermias, the date of which is uncertain, (see Lardner, _Cred._ ch. xxv. and Cave, _Hist. Lit._ lxxxi. is a kind of sermon on St. Paul’s words, “The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” In an amusing manner, not unlike Lucian, he criticised the heathen philosophy, arguing its falsehood from the contradictory opinions held in it.

The form of Theophilus’s work _Ad Autolycum_ is not unlike some of those which have preceded. Indeed the form was suggested by circumstances; being a defence of Christianity against particular charges, and the retaliation of similar ones on the heathens. He drew out the attributes of the true God, b. i; and afterwards exhibited the falsehood of the heathen religion and history, b. ii; defending Christians from the absurd charges made against them; and attempting to show the originality and antiquity of the Hebrew history and chronology, b. iii.

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

The next group of Apologists, which comprises the writers of the African church, Tertullian and Minucius Felix, differs from the last in spirit, though resembling them in purpose. It is the defence made by rhetoricians instead of philosophers. The purpose too, like that of the preceding Apologists, is partly to effect conviction, partly to obtain toleration; but there is a consciousness of the presence of danger, hardly perceivable in the former writers. We feel, as we read these early African writers, that they write like men who felt themselves in the presence of persecution, and who were brought more nearly than the former writers into the face of their foe.

Tertullian’s Tract, which is analysed both by Mr. Woodham in his edition of it, and by Mr. T. Chevallier in his translation of it, is chiefly defensive. He claims toleration, ch. i-vii; refutes the miscellaneous charges against Christianity, ch. x-xxvii; and the charge of treason (xxviii-xxxvii); explains the nature of Christianity (xvii-xxiii); and compares it with philosophy, ch. xlv-xlvii.

The work of Minucius Felix is a dialogue between a heathen, Cæcilius, and a Christian, Octavius. The heathen opens by denying a Providence; next inveighs against the Christians, by a series of charges such as were named in Note 15; and then attacks the Christian doctrines and condition. The Christian Octavius is made to answer each point successively.

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

In passing now from the African school of Apologists to the Alexandrian, we leave the rhetoricians, and meet with the philosophers, Clement and Origen. Clement precedes Tertullian by a few years; Origen succeeds Minucius Felix.

Clement, in part of his _Stromata_, and in his _Cohortatio_, has expressed the spirit of his apologetic; which resembles those of the first group, in admitting the value of heathen philosophy as a preparation for Christianity, and claims that the Hebrews are the source of philosophy, and that Christianity is the full satisfaction for those who sought knowledge.

The spirit and details of Origen’s defence have been so fully given in Lecture II. and Note 14, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon the subject. His apology marks a further step. Tertullian replied to the prejudices of the vulgar, and M. Felix to the scepticism of the educated, which formed two elements in the heathen reaction of the second century. Origen furnished the reply to the attack made by the heathen philosophy. It is in reply to Celsus, who possessed a competent knowledge of Christianity; and who, though writing earlier than the time when the charges which Tertullian afterwards refuted were common, was too well informed to have believed them, and opposed Christianity on deeper grounds. Celsus stands later logically, though not chronologically, than the authors of those frivolous charges, and midway between them and the educated assailants of Christianity of the third century, such as Porphyry. Origen’s defence too marks a similar advance, and, by exhibiting sympathy with the very philosophy which Porphyry and others adopted, shows the kind of defence which was thought likely to attract philosophic minds.

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

The chronology compels us to return to the African church, and introduces us to two Apologists;—Arnobius and Lactantius; one of whom seems to have written a little before Christianity had become a tolerated religion; the latter a little afterwards.

The work of Arnobius is taken up, partly in repelling charges made against the Christians, such as that the Christians do not worship, which are no longer charges of the absurd kind made a century before, partly in comparing Christianity and heathenism; and partly in offering the evidence for Christianity. It is in this point that we find the peculiarity which belongs to Arnobius. He is the first writer who lays firm stress on the demonstrative character of the evidence of fact. In previous writers Christianity had been proved by probability: he makes it to rest on the evidence of certainty; and considers the fact of the revelation to guarantee the contents of it.

The large work of Lactantius, the _Institutiones Divinæ_, is a work of ethics as well as of defence. Christians have obtained protection, and defence is becoming didactic: apology is expiring in instruction: all that is now needed for the spread of Christianity is, that its nature should be understood. The work is partly a work of religion, partly of philosophy, partly of ethics; the object in each case being to show that Christianity supplies the only true form in each department of thought.

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

The remaining Apologists may be grouped together, though they have no point of union, except that their arguments are directed to the special condition of heathenism; when, being no longer triumphant, it was standing on the defensive, and, at the time of the two latter of the group, was fast declining. They are, Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustin.

If Origen is the metaphysical philosopher of the early Apologists; if Augustin is the political; Eusebius is the man of erudition. He has left, besides the small work against Hierocles (see Note 17), two works of defence; the first the _Evangelica Præparatio_, against the Gentiles; the second the _Evangelica Demonstratio_, more suited for the Jews. The former work is to show that Christianity has not been accepted without just cause; which he attempts to prove by a very elaborate discussion (valuable to us in a literary point of view, on account of the quotations which he has preserved) of the various religions, Egyptian, Phœnician, Greek, and of the various types of Greek thought and belief; and, by a comparison of them with the Hebrew, he shows the superiority of the last. The other work, the _Evangelica Demonstratio_, is designed to prove that Christ and Christianity fulfil the ancient prophecies. His apology marks the transitionary time when Christianity was becoming the religion of the Roman world, and men hesitated as to its truth, looking back with regret to the past, with uneasiness to the future.

The other two Apologists are nearly a century later; when Christianity had been long established.

Cyril has already come before us as the respondent to Julian. It is enough to refer to Lecture II. and Note 19, in relation to him. It is worthy of observation, that the circumstance that he should consider it necessary to reply to Julian’s work, at so long a period after the death of the author, and the frustration of his schemes, seems to show the continued existence of a wavering in the faith of Christians, of which we seldom have the opportunity of finding the traces at so late a period.

If Cyril marks the apology of the Alexandrian church at the commencement of the fifth century, Augustin similarly exhibits that of the African in presence of the new woes which were bursting upon the world. Christianity had long lived down the charges made against it by prejudice, and shown itself to be the philosophy which the educated craved. The charges of treason too had ceased, for it had become the established religion; but one prejudice still remained. Victorious with man; triumphant over the prejudices of the vulgar, the opinions of the philosophers, and the power of the state; it still was not, it seemed, victorious in heaven; and at last the heathen gods were arousing themselves to take vengeance on the earth for the overthrow of their worship, by a series of terrible calamities. Apprehensions like these haunted the imagination; and it was the object of Augustin, in his work, _De Civitate Dei_, to remove them. That work was a philosophy of society; it was the history of the church and of the world, viewed in presence of the dissolution, social and political, which seemed impending.

These brief remarks will suffice to give a faint idea of the line of argument adopted by the early Apologists. Further information in regard to them may be found in the following sources:—

In a history of this period written by Tzchirner, _Geschichte der Apologetik_, 1805; also another by Van Senden, 1831, translated into German from the Dutch, 1841; Clausen, _Apologetæ Ecc. Chr. ante-Theodosiani_, 1817; and a brief account in Stein, _Die Apologetik des Christenthum_, § 6. p. 13. Other references may be found in Hase’s _Church History_, E. T. § 52; Hagenbach’s _Dogmengeschichte_, § 29, 117; and in J. A. Fabricius, _Delectus Argument_, ch. i. In the same work (ch. ii-v.) is an account of the chief Apologists, and of the fragments of their lost writings. In reference to the character of the apologetic works of the early fathers, information may also be obtained in Walch’s _Biblioth. Patristic._ (ed. Danz. 1834.) § 97-100. ch. x; and concerning some of them in P. G. Lumper’s _Hist. Theol.-Crit. de Sanct. Patr._ 1785; Moehler’s _Patrologie_, 1840; Ritter’s _Chr. Phil._ i and ii; Neander’s _Kirchengeschichte_, i. 242 seq.; ii. 411 seq.; Kaye’a works on Justin, Clement, and Tertullian; and Dr. A. Clarke’s _Succession of Ecclesiastical Literature_, 1832.

On a review of these early apologies, some peculiarities are observable.

First, with the exception of Origen’s treatise, and some parts of Eusebius, they are inferior as works of mind to many of modern times.(1076) This was to be expected from the character of the age; the literature of that period being poor in tone, compared with the earlier and with the modern. In works of encyclopædic history and geography, and in a reconsideration of philosophy by the light of the past, it had indeed some excellences; but the literature as a whole, not only the Latin, but even the Greek, was debased by the substitution of rhetoric for the healthy freshness of thought and poetry of older times: and the apologetic literature partakes of the tone of its age. The Christian writers, when looked at in a literary point of view, must be compared with authors of their own times. The Alexandrian apologies rise sometimes to philosophy; but those of the Greek nation sink to rhetoric. In later times, men who were giants in mind and learning have written on behalf of Christianity; and it would be unfair to the apologetic fathers to compare them with these.

Secondly, we cannot fail to remark the abundant use of what is now called the philosophical argument for Christianity, the conviction that prejudice must be removed, and antecedent probabilities be suggested, before the hearer could be expected to submit to Christianity. The just inference from this is not that which some would draw, the depreciation of the argument from external evidence, but rather a corroboration of the importance of the emotional element, as an ingredient in the judgment formed on religion. The only practical inference that can be drawn in reference to ourselves is, that if it be true that our age resembles theirs, as has been suggested by Pressensé (see Lecture VIII. p. 356), we must adopt the same plan; not because we admit that the external evidence is uncertain or unreal, but because the other kind of evidence is best adapted, from philosophical reasons, to such a state of society as ours.

Several centuries pass before we again meet with works of evidence. In the dark ages, the public mind and thought were nominally Christian; and at least were not sufficiently educated to admit of the generation of doubts which might create a demand for apologetic works. Accordingly we pass over this interval, and proceed at once to the middle ages.

II. The scepticism of the second period of free thought possessed so largely the character of a tendency rather than an attitude of fixed antagonism, that it gave no opportunity for direct works of refutation. But the spirit of apologetic is seen in two respects; in the special refutation of particular points of teaching, as in Bernard’s controversy with Abélard, and more especially in the works of the scholastic theology.

This theology, especially as seen in the works of the great realist Aquinas, and of others who took their method from him, was essentially, as has been before said (pp. 11 and 92), a work of defence. In the two centuries before his time we already find the spirit of reverent inquiry working. Anselm’s two celebrated works, the _Monologium_ and _Proslogium_, a kind of soliloquy on the Trinity, and the _Cur Deus Homo_, or theory of the Atonement, are the work of a mind that was reconsidering its own beliefs, and restating the grounds of the immemorial doctrines of the church. (See J. A. Hasse, _Anselm_, 1843, 52.) In the following century (viz. the twelfth), the work of Peter Lombard, called the _Sententiæ_, marks an age when inquiry was active; and the material was supplied for its satisfaction by means of searching amid the opinions of the past for the witness of authority. But in the thirteenth century, the grand advance made by Aquinas in his _Summa_, is no less than the result of the conviction that religion admitted of a philosophy; that theological truth was a science; and so, commencing with the plan of first discussing God; then man; then redemption; then ethics; he created a method, which had been indeed suggested by his predecessors, but was more fully displayed by him, for arranging the truths of theology in a systematic form, in which their reasonableness might appear, and through which they might commend themselves to the judgment of a philosophical age.

The most successful mode of replying to objections is not to refute the error contained in them, but to grasp the truth and build it into a system, where the doubter finds his mind and heart satisfied with the possession of that for which he was craving. If the twelfth century had not had its Abélards, its spirit of inquiry, of analysis, and of doubt; the church would never have had its champion philosopher Aquinas: but if it had not had its Aquinas, the succeeding ages would probably have produced many more Abélards. The scholastic theology accordingly must be regarded as the true rationalism, the true use of reason in defence. Like as the mind goes through the process of perceiving facts, then of classifying and generalizing, next of defining and tracing principles to practical results; so the church, in forming its theology, receives its facts as they were once for all apprehended by inspired men of old, and are corroborated by the experience of the Christian consciousness from age to age: but, after so receiving them, it exercises its office in creating a theology, by classifying and arranging them, and generalizing from them; and when new doubts or objections arise, it recompares its teaching with the faith once delivered to the saints; defines and prescribes the limits of truth and error; and thus absorbs into its own system whatever is true in the newly-presented doubts or objections. This is really the action of the church in moments of peril; and is that which was effected by the scholastic theologians,—Anselm, the two Victors, Aquinas, Bonaventura, and others. It is sufficient to refer to Ritter’s _Christliche Philosophie_, iii. 502 seq.; iv. 257 seq.; Neander’s _Kirchengeschichte_, vol. viii; Stein’s _Die Apologetic_, § 7 and 8; Hagenbach’s _Dogmengesch._ § 150; and Hase’s _Church History_, § 218, 277, 278; for information concerning these writers and their position.

III. At the time of the Renaissance, in the fifteenth century, which was the third period at which the Christian faith was in peril from doubt, we begin to meet with works of evidence of a more directly controversial kind. Defence is no longer a spirit, but a fact. Apologetic theology is severed from Dogmatic.