Chapter XX: Part 20

138 Cornelius Fronto is referred to by Minucius Felix (_Octav._ ch. 9
and 31), as having charged incestuous banquets on the Christians.
Tzchirner (_Opusc. Acad._ 1829. p. 294) conjectures that his work
may have been a legal speech against some Christian, which implied a
defence of the imperial persecution. Part of Fronto’s works have
been found during the present century, and edited with a
dissertation on his life and writings by Angelo Mai. (On his work
against Christianity, see p. 57 of the dissertation.) A brief
account of them may be found in Smith’s Biographical Dictionary sub
_Fronto_.

139 Lucian probably lived from about A.D. 125 to 200. Consult the
account given by Donaldson (_Gr. Lit._ ch. 54, § 3 and 4) of his
life, opinions, and works, where a comparison is drawn between him
and Voltaire: also Mr. Dyer’s article _Lucianus_ in Smith’s
Biographical Dictionary; also Fabricius’ _Bibliotheca Græca_, v. 340
(ed. Harles); Lardner’s _Collection of Jewish and Heathen
Testimonies_, Works, vol. viii. ch. 19. The satire referred to above
is entitled Περὶ τῆς Περεγρίνου τελευτῆς.

140 We learn from other writers that Peregrinus was a real character;
but Aulus Gellius (xii. 11), gives a much more favourable character
of him than Lucian.

141 The passage (of which this is Tzchirner’s paraphrase) is: Πεπείκασι
γὰρ αὑτοὺς οἲ κακοδαίμονες τὸ μὲν ὅλον ἀθάνατοι ἔσεσθαι καὶ
βιώσεσθαι τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον, παρ᾽ ὅ καὶ καταφρονοῦσι τοῦ θανάτου καὶ
ἑκόντες αὑτοὺς ἐπιδιδόασιν οἱ πολλοί; ἕπειτα δὲ ὁ νομοθέτης ὁ πρῶτος
ἕπεισεν αὐτοὺς ὡς ἀδελφοὶ πάντες εἷεν ἀλλήλων, ἐπειδὰν ἅπαξ
παραβάντες Θεοὺς μὲν τοὺς Ἑλληνικοὺς ἀπαρνήσωνται, τὸν δὲ
ἀνεσκολοπισμένον ἐκεῖνον σοφιστὴν αὐτῶν προσκυνῶυσι καὶ κατὰ τοὺς
ἐκείνου νόμους βιῶσι. Pereg. Prot. § 13.

142 Cfr. Pereg. Prot. § 11 and 12.

143 Bp. Pearson considered (_Vindic. Ignat._ part. ii. 6,) that an
allusion is made to the death of Ignatius, (Cfr. Le Moyne, _Varia
Sacra_ (pref.) 1694, for a somewhat similar argument in reference to
Polycarp.) A. Planck in his _Lucian und Christenthum_ (part i.) in
_Stud. und Krit._ 1851, the references to which are given in note 12
of these lectures, tries to show that Lucian alludes even to
Ignatius’s letters. If he does not succeed in establishing this
point, he at least (part iii.) makes Lucian’s knowledge of Christian
literature extremely probable.

144 These are enumerated by A. Planck, (id. part ii.)

145 Huet thinks the date was subsequent to A.D. 246. (_Origeniana_ i. c.
3, § 11, ed. 1668.)

146 There is a doubt whether the Celsus against whom Origen wrote is the
friend to whom Lucian has addressed his life of the magician
Alexander of Abonoteichus. The arguments on this question are stated
and weighed in Neander’s _Kirchengeschichte_, vol. i. 169, and
Baur’s _Geschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte_, p. 371. Both
conclude that the persons were different. The evidence of their
oneness is chiefly Origen’s conjecture that they were the same
person (Cont. Celsum. iv. 36.) The evidence against it is, (1) that
Lucian’s friend attacked magical rites; the Celsus of Origen seems
to have believed them; (2) that Lucian’s friend was probably an
Epicurean, the other Celsus a Platonist or Eclectic; (3) that the
former is praised for his mildness, the latter shows want of
moderation. Pressensé nevertheless (ut sup. vol. ii. p. 105) regards
them as the same person.

147 B. i. c. 28. The references are made to the chapters in the
Benedictine edition by De la Rue (Paris, 1733.) The earlier part of
b. i. is miscellaneous in nature and seems prefatory; and it is not
easy to determine the relation of Origen’s remarks in it to the
arrangement of Celsus’s book.

148 Speaking generally, B. i. ch. 27, 28, 32, may be taken as the one,
and the rest of b. i., together with b. ii. as the other.

149 B. ii. § 32.

150 B. i. 28, 32-35.

151 B. i. 37, 58, 66.

152 B. i. 38, 68.

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

154 B. ii. 21.

155 B. ii. 24.

156 B. ii. 16.

157 B. iii. 38.

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

159 B. iii. § 1 and elsewhere.

160 B. iii. § 5.

161 B. iii. § 5.

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

163 B. iv. 71; vi. 62.

164 B. iv. 48.

165 B. vii. 3; viii. 45.

166 B. vii. 14.

167 B. iv. 22, 23.

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

169 B. vi. 60.

170 B. iii.

171 B. v. vi. vii.

172 B. iii. 10.

173 B. iii. 5, 14.

174 B. iii. § 55; viii. 73.

175 B. viii. 69.

176 B. viii. 69.

177 B. iii. 44, 50.

178 B. iii. 59, 62, 74.

179 B. iii. 55; viii. 37.

180 B. vii. 9; i. 2; i. 9; iii. 39; vi. 10.

181 B. vi. 15; vi. 22, 58, 62; v. 63; vi. 1.

182 B. iii. 22; vii. 28-30.

183 B. iv. 37; vi. 49.

184 B. iv. 14; v. 2; vii. 36.

185 B. iv. 62, 70.

186 B. v. 14; vii. 28, 36, vi. 78.

187 B. iv. 74, 76, 23.

188 B. iii. 65.

189 B. v. 14, 15.

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

191 B. viii. 2.

192 B. iv. 99.

193 B. iv. 3, 7, 18.

194 B. iv. 74.

195 On the alteration in the attacks, Cfr. Gerard (of Aberdeen),
_Compendium of Evidences_, 1828 (part ii. ch. 1.)

196 Porphyry lived from about A.D. 233 to 305. For his life and writings
see Holstenius _de Vit. Porphyr._ (1630); Fabric. _Bibl. Græc._ v.
725. (ed. Harles); Lardner’s Works, viii. 37; Donaldson’s _Gr. Lit._
ch. 53, § 7. For his attack on Christianity consult Neander’s
_Kirchengesch._ i. 290; Pressensé ii. 156.

197 His own words, quoted in Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._ iii. 19), have been
thought to imply this, but seem merely to state his acquaintance in
youth with Origen. See Holsten. _Vit. Porphyr._ p. 16.

198 Cousin (Pref. to Edition of Abélard _Sic et Non_, p. 61, note 46,)
considers that a passage which Boethius quoted from Porphyry was the
means of reviving philosophical speculation on this point.

199 He seems especially to have felt the difficulty which was before
noticed as marking one type of religious opinion, the craving for a
theology which rested on some divine authority, revelation from the
world invisible, (Cfr. Augustin’s criticism on him in _De Civ. Dei._
x. ch. 9, 11, 26, 28); and hence he drew such a system from the real
or pretended answers of oracles, in his περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων
φιλοσοφίας, of which fragments exist in Eusebius and Augustin
(Fabric. _Bibl. Gr._ v. 744). Heathens, it would seem, had consulted
oracles on this very subject of Christianity; and it is these, the
genuineness of which may be doubted, that he uses. His aim seems to
have been to support the existing religious system; and for this
purpose he favoured the alliance with the priestly system, and the
institution of religious rites. See Neander _Kirchengesch._ i. 293.

200 On this work, κατὰ Χριστιανῶν, see Holsten. (_Vita Porphyr._ c. x.)
who quotes at length from the Fathers the principal passages in
which allusion to it is made.

201 Omitting allusion to the references concerning the canon furnished
in older works, e.g. of Cosin, Dupin, Jones, Lardner, Michaelis,
some of which were written in reference to the controversy between
the Romanists and Reformed, others between the Christians and
freethinkers, we may at least name Moses Stuart’s work on the _Canon
of the Old Testament_, and Credner _Zur Geschichte des Kanons_ with
reference to the New; (the former is apologetic, the latter
independent and slightly rationalistic, but full of learning;) and
especially the work on the _Canon of the New Testament_ by Mr. B. F.
Westcott (1855), and the article on _Canon_ by him in Smith’s
Biblical Dictionary, where references to fuller literary materials
are given.

202 Hieronymi _Opera_, (at the end of the Proem. of the Commentary on
Galatians) vol. 4. part i. p. 223, Benedictine edition of Martianay,
1706; also Galat. ii. 11 (id. p. 244); also at the end of book xiv.
(Isaiah liii.) vol. iii. p. 388; also Ep. 74 to Augustin (id. iv.
part ii. 619, 622.)

203 Euseb. _Eccl. Hist._ vi. c. 19 (ed. Gaisford, p. 414) gives a long
extract from Porphyry. Of the second book nothing is known.

204 On the school of Alexandria see H. E. F. Guericke _Schola quæ Alex.
floruit_, 1825 (p. 51-81); Matter’s _Essai sur l’école
d’Alexandrie_, 1840; Neander’s _Kirchengesch._ II. 908 seq. 1196
seq. On the allegorical method of interpretation adopted by Origen,
see Huet’s _Origeniana_ II. quæst. 13 (vol. i. 170); Conybeare’s
Bampton Lecture for 1824 (Lect. 2-4); R. A. Vaughan’s _Essays and
Remains_ (Essay I); and an article in the _North British Review_,
No. 46, August 1855. Also compare a note on systems of
interpretation in Lect. VI.

205 Euseb. Præp. i. 9; x. 9; which passages merely express the hostility
of Porphyry.

206 In Jerome’s Proem. to Daniel are four passages. (See Works, vol.
iii. p. 1073-4.)

207 See Jerome. Comm. on Matt. xxiv. 15 (b. iv. vol. iv. p. 115).

208 As early as the time of Spinoza, from whose work, the Theologicus
Politicus, Collins may perhaps have indirectly derived hints; doubts
of the authenticity of parts were expressed; and the inquiry was
pursued by Michaelis and Eichhorn: but the modern criticism on it
dates especially from Berthold (1806), who impugned its
authenticity. Bleek (1822), De Wette, Von Lengerke of Königsberg
(1835), Maurer (1838), more recently Hitzig (1850), and Lücke
(1852), followed on the same side. The English theologian, Dr.
Arnold, adopted the same view. The contrary opinion has been
maintained by Hengstenberg (1831), Hävernich (1832), Keil (1853);
Delitzch (in Herzog’s Encycl. 1854), Auberlen (1857), by Moses
Stuart, and by Dr. S. Davidson (Introduction to the Old Testament,
1856). Hengstenberg, Hävernich, and Auberlen are translated. The
first of these three is valuable, especially for the literary and
exegetical questions; the second as a controversial commentary; the
third for tracing the organic unity of the book.

209 The importance attached to the occurrence of Greek words is much
over-estimated. They can only be shown to be four, which occur in
ch. iii. 6, 7, 10; viz., קיתרה κιθάρα, סמבא σαμβυκή, סומפניה
συμφωνία, פסלתרין ψαλτήριον; all of which relate to musical
instruments, not unlikely to be introduced by commerce, and which
would naturally be called by their foreign names. Some of the
writers named in a preceding note have examined incidentally the
character of the Hebrew and Chaldee of Daniel, and consider that
both are similar to those of works confessedly of the age of Daniel;
and that the Chaldee is separated by a chasm from that of the
earliest Targums. Professor Pusey delivered a lecture on the subject
in the university, containing the results of his own recent studies,
in the summer of the present year, which will form one of a printed
course of lectures on Daniel. See also an article by the Rev. J.
McGill in the Journal of Sacred Literature, Jan. 1861.

210 E.g. the wars of the kings of the north and of the south, c. xi.

211 Viz., till about B.C. 164.

212 He seems also to have entered into some examination of the specific
prophecies; for he objects to the application of the words “the
abomination of desolation” to other objects than that which he
considers its original meaning. See Hieronym. on Matt. xxiv. 15, the
reference to which is given in a preceding note.

213 A few other traces of Porphyry’s views remain, which are of less
importance, and are levelled against parts of the New Testament:
e.g. the change of purpose in our blessed Lord (John vii. [Hieronym.
vol. iv, part ii. p. 521 (_Dial. adv. Pelag._) _Ep._ (101) _ad
Pammach_. Several are given in Holsten. (_Vit. Porphyr._ p. 86)]),
the reasons why the Old Testament was abrogated if divine,
[Augustin. _Epist._ (102, olim 49, Benedict. ed. 1689) vol. ii. p.
274, where six questions are named, some of which come from
Porphyry:] the question what became of the generations which lived
before Christianity was proclaimed, if Christianity was the only way
of salvation; objections to the severity of St. Peter in the death
of Ananias; and the inscrutable mystery of an infinite punishment in
requital for finite sin. (Aug. _Retract._ b. ii. c. 31. vol. i. p.
53, concerning Matt. vii. 2.)

214 Hierocles’ work was called Λόγοι φιλαλήθεις πρὸς τοὺς Χριστιανούς.
Our knowledge of it depends upon the refutation which Eusebius wrote
of it; and upon passages in Lactantius (_Instit._ v. 2, and _De
Mort. Persecut._ 16.) Concerning Hierocles see Bayle’s _Dictionary,
sub voc._ (notes); Fabric. _Bibl. Gr._ i. 792. note; Cave’s _Hist.
Lit._ i. 131. ii. 99; Lardner’s Works, vol. viii. ch. 39. § 1-4, and
Neander’s _Kirchengesch._ i. 296.

215 On Apollonius of Tyana, see Lardner’s Works, vol. viii. ch. 39. § 5,
6. Ritter’s _History of Philosophy_ (vol. iv, b. xii. ch. 7), and
especially the monograph by C. Baur of Tübingen, _Apollonius von
Tyana and Christus oder das Verhaeltniss des Pythagoreismus zum
Christenthum_ (1832); also the Abbé Houtteville’s Essay affixed to
the _Discourse on the Method of the Principal Authors for and
against Christianity_, translated 1739; and the article _Apollonius_
by Professor Jowett in Smith’s Biographical Dictionary.

216 He was probably midway between Pythagoras and the Alexander named by
Lucian.

217 It was written about A.D. 210, at the request of Julia Domna, and is
entitled τὰ ἐς τὸν Τυανέα Ἀπολλώνιον. On this life by Philostratus
see Fabric. _Bibl. Gr._ v. 541; the above-named works of Houtteville
and Baur; Donaldson’s _Gr. Lit._ ch. lii. § 7; Pressensé ii. 144
seq.; and a recent translation of Philostratus with remarks by A.
Chassang, “Le Marveilleux dans l’Antiquité” (1862).

218 Lardner and Ritter think that Philostratus did not write with a
polemical reference to Christianity, but Baur concludes otherwise.
Dean Trench has made a few remarks in reference to this question
(_Notes to Miracles_, p. 62).

219 On Iamblichus’s Life of Pythagoras, see Fabricius’s Bibl. Gr. v.
764; Lardner viii. 39. § 7, who however concludes in this case, as
in that of Philostratus, that the book was not designed against
Christianity.

220 Charles Blount in 1680. See Lect. IV.

221 A.D. 313.

222 A.D. 361-3.

223 Κατὰ Χριστιανῶν. See Fabric. _Bibl. Gr._ vii. 738; Lardner viii. 46.
§ 2, and 4; Donaldson iii. 303. Fragments of it are preserved in
Cyril’s reply. The Marquis d’Argens, at the court of Frederick the
Great of Prussia, translated and tried to unite them. _Défense du
Paganisme par l’Empéreur Julian_, 1764.

224 On the life and reign of Julian, see Gibbon (_Decline and Fall_, c.
22-24); Fabricii _Lux Evangelii_, 1721, c. 14, where the edicts
which refer to Christianity are collected; Lardner viii. 46; Abbé de
la Bletterie’s _Vie de Julien_; Neander, _Kirchengesch_ iii. 76. and
188, who also wrote in 1812 a monograph on the subject; Wiggers in
Illgen’s _Hist. Zeitschr._ 1837; Milman’s _Hist. of Christianity_
iii. 6. On Julian’s works see Fabric. _Bibl. Gr._ vi. 719 seq.;
Donaldson iii. 57. § 6.

225 Wyttenbach _Opusc._ i. 6; Donaldson iii. p. 307.

226 By Strauss, _Der Romantiker auf dem Throne des Caesaren oder Julian
der abtruennige_ 1847.

227 There are some good remarks on Julian in Waddington’s Church
History, ch. viii.

228 He also made the well-known attempt to rebuild the temple of
Jerusalem. On the alleged miracle which prevented the execution of
the scheme, see Warburton’s works, vol. iv., Lardner, vol. viii. ch.
46. § 3, and Milman’s note to Gibbon (c. 23.) Warburton believes the
miracle; but Lardner hesitates. The original passages which refer to
it are Amm. Marcell. xxiii. ch. 1; Ambr. _Ep._ xi. 2; Chrysost.
_adv. Jud. et Gent._; Greg. _Naz. Orat._ 4. _adv. Jul._

229 E.g. Ep. to Ecdidius (Ep. 9, Spanheim’s edition, 1696); Decree to
the Alexandrians (Ep. 26, 51); Ep. to Arsacius (49).

230 Cyril, adv. Jul. B. iii. and iv.

231 B. iv.

232 B. ii.

233 B. iii.

234 B. iii.

235 B. v.

236 B. v. and vii.

237 B. vi.

238 B. x.

239 B. vii. and x.

240 B. viii.

241 B. vi.

242 B. x.

243 Greg. Naz. Op. i. Orat. 4 and 5.

244 Q. Aurelius Symmachus was deputed by the senate to remonstrate with
Gratian on the removal of the altar of Victory (A.D. 382) from the
council hall; and afterwards, when appointed (384) præfect of the
city, he addressed a letter to Valentinian requiring the restoration
of the pagan deities to their former honours. Both Symmachus’s
address and St. Ambrose’s refutation are given in Cave’s _Lives of
Fathers_ (Life of Ambrose, § 3. p. 576.)

245 Augustin refutes this objection in several places of the first five
books in the _De Civ. Dei._

246 The work of Cosmas Indicopleustes in the middle of the sixth century
is designed to show the falsehood of the Ptolemaic system of
astronomy in assuming the world to be a sphere, and proves the
continuance of speculation on the harmony of science and revelation.
See Donaldson’s _Gr. Lit._ III. 59. § 3.

247 P. 14-17.

248 This appears from a letter of Porphyry to his wife Marcella,
discovered by Angelo Mai, and edited at Milan, 1816, in which his
personal religious aspirations are seen.

249 See this discussed towards the close of Lect. VIII.

250 It is obvious that this belief blunted in some degree the force of
arguments built upon miracles and prophecy: this circumstance
explains the comparative absence of these arguments in the early
apologies against the heathens. The reality however both of miracles
and prophecy is always implied; and occasionally the direct appeal
to them is used. The apologists were thus compelled, even if no
other reason founded deeper in the philosophy of evidence had
inclined them to do so, to lay stress on what would now be called
the argument from internal evidence for the truth of Christianity.
The Hulsean Prize Essay for 1852, by Mr. W. J. Bolton, contains a
useful account of the apologists, with extracts from their writings.
And Mr. H. A. Woodham, in the preface to his edition of Tertullian’s
Apology (1843), has made some very suggestive remarks. Both writers
show that the fathers use the argument from miracles more frequently
than had generally been supposed.

251 For the intellectual and social condition during this period,
consult Guizot’s _History of Civilization in France_; Hallam’s
_History of the Middle Ages_, ch. ix. part i.; and _History of
Literature_, ch. i. Also three works by Laurent, _Les Barbares et le
Catholicisme_, _La Papauté et l’Empire_, _La Féodalité et l’Eglise_.

252 See Lect. I. p. 7.

253 See Guizot’s _History of Civilization in Europe_, ch. vi. and x.;
Laurent, _La Reforme_, 1861 (p. 131-271.) The last-named work, to
which frequent reference will be made, is an able production by a
Professor (probably a freethinker) in the university of Ghent. It is
the eighth of a series of works, entitled, _Etudes de l’Histoire de
l’Humanité_, of which three were named in a previous note, and
contains a careful examination (1) of the reform, religious and
social, of the middle ages; (2) of heterodoxy, both as free thought
and incredulity, during the same period; (3) of the Renaissance; (4)
of the principles of the Reformation.

254 It has been conjectured that the name was probably derived from the
circumstance that it was the philosophy which arose in the various
_Scholæ_ which Charlemagne established throughout his empire; and
afterwards was that which existed in the scholæ or halls of the
mediæval universities. Brucker has discussed the previous history of
the word (_History of Critical Philosophy_, iii. 710; and Hauréau,
nearly repeating him, _Philosophie Scholastique_, i. 7, with a view
to show how it was used before it became changed into the meaning
just assigned to it). See also a few remarks by Saisset in the
_Revue des Deux Mondes_, 1850, vol. iii. p. 645.

255 It is called logic, if we denote that part of it which studies the
mode of investigation, and the comparative value of evidence in the
different fields of inquiry. It is the psychological branch of
metaphysics, if it explores the structure and functions of the mind,
ascertaining the subjective validity of the data employed in the
method which forms the subject matter of contemplation in logic. It
is the ontological branch, if it reaches to the still higher problem
of searching for the traces of objective reality, independent of the
act of human thought, which are involved in the data previously
examined.

256 The Διαλεκτικὴ of Plato, it is well known, was the method of
analysis by means of language, and comprised the field which his
successor Aristotle separated in two, viz. Διαλεκτικὴ, logic, the
inquiry concerning method; and Σοφία, metaphysics, the inquiry
concerning being. See Bp. Hampden’s article _Aristotle_ in the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_; Ritter, _History of Philosophy_ (English
translation), vol. ii. b. 8, c. 2 and 3; and vol. iii. c. 2.

257 Viz. antecedents in the mechanical class of sciences, types in the
zoological and botanical. The distinction is that which is indicated
by Mill under the names of “uniformities of causation,” and
“uniformities of coexistence.” See Mill’s _Logic_, vol. i. b. i. ch.
7, § 4; vol. ii. b. iii. ch. 22; b. iv. ch. 7. Compare also
Whewell’s _Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences_, vol. i. b. iii. c.
2. and b. viii.

258 This is the explanation of the fact already quoted from Cousin, that
the mediæval philosophy depended on a quotation made by Boëthius
from Porphyry.

259 Viz. Darwin’s Inquiry into the Origin of Species, 1859.

260 Inasmuch as the realist assumed that the innate ideas of the mind
gave a knowledge of real essences in nature.

261 “Neque enim quæro intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam,”
are the words of the realist Anselm (_Proslog._ I. p. 43. ed.
Gerberon.) “Dubitando ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem
percipimus,” are those of the nominalist Abélard. (_Sic et Non_, p.
16. ed. Cousin.)

262 The best modern work on scholasticism is the _Mémoire Couronné_, by
B. Hauréau, 2 vols. 1850, in which the various authors and schools
of thought are fully treated. Among older sources, the following are
important; Brucker, iii. 709-868; Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 237-79;
Ritter’s _Christliche Philosophie_; Buhle, _Geschichte der Neuern
Philosophie_, i. 810 seq.; Hampden’s _Bampton Lectures_ (I. and
II.), and the article by him on _Aquinas_ in the _Encyclopædia
Metropolitana_; also Maurice’s _Mediæval Philosophy_.

263 Cfr. Tennemann’s _Manual of Philosophy_, § 243.

264 On Abélard’s personal character, see Guizot’s _Lettres d’Abélard_,
1839; and Remusat’s _Abélard_, 1845, vol. i. part x., the latter of
which writers has long studied his life, philosophy, and theology;
also Taillandier’s article _La Libre pensée du moyen age_ (_Revue
des Deux Mondes, Aug. 1861_); Tennemann’s _Gesch. der Phil._ viii.
170 seq.; Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 251.

265 In his work _Liber Calamitatum_.

266 In his _Introductio ad Theologiam_, and _Theologia Christiana_. See
Neander’s _Kirchengeschichte_, viii. 505 seq.

267 In A.D. 1121.

268 The nature of this contest is given in Mabillon’s edition of Bernard
(_Præf._ § 5), and the characters of the two disputants are sketched
in Sir J. Stephens’s _Lectures on the History of France_, ii.
(163-207); also in Neander’s _Kirchengesch._, vol. viii, p. 533 seq.

269 It was published by Cousin in 1836, with an elaborate preface
relating to the literary history of Abélard’s works and opinions, as
well as the character of the scholastic philosophy generally. An
edition of the text, including the passages not printed by Cousin,
has subsequently been published by Henke and Lindenkohl, (Marburg,
1851.) See also Neander’s _Kirchengesch._, viii. p. 523 seq.

270 The following are examples of the questions proposed: No. (5.) Quod
non sit Deus singularis et contra; (6) Quod sit Deus tripartitus et
contra; (14) Quod sit filius sine principio et contra; (18) Quod
æterna generatio filii narrari vel sciri vel intelligi possit et
non; (28) Quod nihil fiat casu et contra; (30) Quod peccata etiam
placeant Deo et non; (38) Quod omnia sciat Deus et non; (121) Quod
liceat habere concubinam et contra; (153) Quod nulla de causa
mentiri liceat et contra; (156) Quod liceat hominem occidere et non.

271 Abélard’s Preface is analysed and discussed in Cousin, p. 191 seq.,
and Stephens, vol. ii. p. 169.

272 Viz. (1) the peculiarities of their style; (2) their use of popular
language on scientific questions; (3) the corruption of the text;
(4) the number of spurious books; (5) the retraction by the fathers
of their own previous statements; (6) their careless use of profane
learning; (7) the describing things as they appear, not as they are;
(8) their ambiguous use of words.

273 R. Simon had published a work, _Histoire Critique du Vieux
Testament_, 1678, in which positions were stated which were new at
that time, but which, as Hallam observes, (_Hist. of Lit._ iii.
299,) “now pass without reproof.” The history of the controversy
connected with Simon is contained in Walch’s _Bibliotheca Theologica
Selecta_, 1765, vol. iv. (251-9.) See also Bp. Marsh’s Lectures,
part i. p. 52.

274 See Martène et Durant in _Thesaur. Nov. Anecdot._ (1717) vol. v.
Pref. p. 3.

275 Cousin thinks him a sceptic. So also Sir J. Stephens, ii. 170.
Taillandier (_Rev. des Deux Mondes_ quoted above) takes the view
given in the text, that his character was complex. See also
Laurent’s _La Reforme_, pp. 318-331.

276 See Preller’s _Hist. Phil. Gr. Rom._ xxxviii. § 158. Bayle’s
Dictionary, art. _Zeno_ (vol. iv. edition 5, p. 539 note).

277 Kant’s _Kritik_ (_Transcendent. Dial._ b. ii. div. 2, p. 322, Engl.
transl.). The illustration is borrowed from Taillandier, to whose
article I am indebted for several other suggestions.

278 Grote, vol. viii. ch. 68.

279 In his Prologue.

280 See Cousin’s Preliminary Dissertation, p. 201-3.

281 See Laurent’s _La Reforme_, p. 263.

282 It may be sufficient to allude to names like those of Innocent III.,
Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Frederick II., Cimabue, Dante; and to the
great works of law (civil and canon) and philosophy, the great works
in Gothic architecture, and the revival of painting, as examples of
the intellectual character of the age; and to the commencement of
constitutional liberty, the final settlement of Europe, and
commencement of the present European kingdoms, as illustrations of
its advance in social government.

283 In 1229.

284 The work is attributed to Joachim, a Calabrian abbot, about A.D.
1200, whom Dante names (_Paradiso_, xii. 140). It was edited in
1250, with an introduction probably written by John of Parma,
general of the Franciscans. Mosheim (_History_, cent. 13, part ii.
ch. 2, § 33 note), has carefully investigated the subject. See also
Laurent’s _La Reforme_, pp. 295-302; F. Spanheim’s _Works_, vol. i.
p. 1665; Neander’s _Kirchengesch._ vol. viii. p. 844 seq.

285 In 1260. Labbei _Concil._ (1671) vol. xi. part. ii. p. 2361.

286 Rev. xiv. 6.

287 The work so entitled passed under Lessing’s name; but its authorship
has been recently disputed. In an article in Illgen’s _Zeitschrift
für die Historiche Theologie_ for 1839, part iv., on the life of A.
Thaer compiled by Koerte, there is evidence given that Lessing was
only the editor, Thaer having sent it to him anonymously. See also a
remark in a letter of Lessing, _Works_, vol. xii. p. 503,
(Lachmann’s edition.)

_ 288 Les Ruines_, c. 24.

289 E.g. in Benjamin Constant’s work, _De La Religion_, and Laurent’s
_Etudes de l’Histoire de l’Humanité_; Buckle’s _History of
Civilization_; Comte’s _Philosophie Positive_. It is chargeable in
spirit on many others.

290 The letter of Gregory IX., in which the statement is contained,
bears date July 1, 1239. It is quoted in Raynald’s Supplement to
Baronius. (Annal. Eccles. 1747. vol. ii. p. 218, 13 of Greg. IX.
xxvi.)

291 See Renan’s _Averroes et l’Averroisme_, pp. (292-300), an admirable
work, to which we shall have occasion frequently to refer.

292 Michelet’s _Hist. de France_, iii. 201. The charge of unbelief
against the Templars was never satisfactorily established.

_ 293 Decameron_, i. 3, “_Le Tre Annella_.”

294 On Averroes see Ritter’s _Geschichte der Christlichen Philosophie_,
vol. iv. b. 11, c. 5; Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 259; Laurent’s _La
Reforme_, p. 338-45, 364-85; and especially Renan’s _Averroes_, p.
205 seq.

_ 295 Inferno_, iv. 144; “Averrois che il gran comento feo.”

296 Renan enlarges in one chapter of his work in a most interesting
manner on “Le rôle d’Averroès dans la peinture Italienne du moyen
âge,” pp. (301-16). The illustrations above given are borrowed from
it.

297 In the poem Piers Plowman, pp. 179, 180, Wright’s edition; the
doctrine of the Fall and its consequences is the subject of the
scepticism named.

_ 298 Inferno_, Canto x; 15, 118.

299 Compare Dante, _Inferno_, xix. 104, &c. See Laurent’s _Reforme_,
364-70, 372-78.

300 On this subject, see Laurent, b. iii., and J. D. Burchard’s _Die
Cultur der Renaissance in Italien_, 1860.

301 1400-1625.

302 An Essay of great value, on “the Literature of the Italian Revival,”
appeared in the _British Quarterly Review_, No. 42, April, 1885,
from which most of the illustrations and remarks which follow in the
next two pages are taken.

303 See Laurent, id. p. 364-70.

304 Among recent critics who think so are Foscolo (_Quarterly Review_,
No. 42, p. 521), and Panizzi (_Boiardo_ and _Ariosto_, vol. i. 203),
and in part also Hallam (_History of Literature_, vol. i. 195,
303-5), and Guinguené (_Hist. Lit. de l’Italie_, vol. iv. c. 3-101).

305 The view here taken is maintained with great ability by the writer
of the Review named above. One joke, which he cites as not uncommon
in these epics, is the representation of St. Peter streaming with
perspiration with the labour of opening and shutting the gates of
Paradise (_Morg. Mag._ 26. 91); and, as a more allowable one, the
frequent citation of a certain archbishop Turpin as a witness for
any absurdities, (_Berni Orl. Innam._ 18. 26), whose existence and
pseudonymous work Pope Calixtus II had pronounced to be real.

306 The last remnant of these miracle plays, which occurs decennially in
a valley in Bavaria, is an actual proof of this statement. An
interesting account of the last celebration of it was written by Dr.
Stanley in _Macmillan’s Magazine_ for October, 1860.

307 See Dean Trench’s Introduction (ch. 3) to his _Translations from
Calderon_.

308 The proof of this position must be sought in the Review already
indicated. The illustration from Byron is due to it. Pulci lived
1431-87; Bello, about the end of the fifteenth century, the exact
date not known; Ariosto, 1474-1533.

309 Eichhorn’s _Geschichte der Literatur_, vol. ii. 443; Bayle’s
_Dictionary_, _sub voc._; Halllam’s _History of Literature_, vol. i.
4. 21.

310 Roscoe, in his works on the Medicis, is silent about these
tendencies. In the fifteenth century, Ficinus, Poggio, Politian,
Aretin; and at the beginning of the sixteenth, at the Roman court,
Paolo Giovio and Bembo were suspected. See Brucker’s _Hist.
Philosophiæ_, Period iii. part 1. l. ii. c. 3.

311 The comparison of the painting of the Roman, or the later Florentine
schools of the sixteenth century, with that of the older Florentine,
or of the Umbrian of the fifteenth, will establish this fact so far
as regards art.

312 Similar periods will be hereafter described; viz. French “Humanism”
in Lect. V. and German in Lect. VI.

313 This fact is also taken from the anonymous reviewer before quoted.

314 It is hardly necessary to point out that physical science has not
only made discoveries in its own sphere, but in logic also. By
presenting a definite body of verified truth, it has rendered
possible the creation of a system of _real_ as distinct from
_formal_ logic. In the scientific discoveries that have been made,
we can read the logic of the process by which they were attained,
and thus raise “applied logic” to the dignity of a science, and
indirectly discover a logic of probable evidence. It is the
intellectual, and not merely the material value of physical science
to which allusion is made in the text. It shows at once what man can
know, and the limits where knowledge must give place to faith, and
science to revelation.

315 See Guizot’s _Hist. de la Civilisation de l’Europe_, ch. (9-11.)

316 Reginald Pecock was a bishop of Chichester about the middle of the
fifteenth century; who in his rigour against the Lollards himself
incurred the charge of deism. His work which laid him open to it,
“The Repressor of overmuch blaming of the Clergy,” has lately been
edited with an instructive preface by Mr. Churchill Babington. The
work appeals to reason, but is not open to the charge of deism. In
tone it may be compared to Locke’s “Reasonableness of Christianity.”

317 The contest in which Hütten was engaged against the monks, with the
_Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum_, which related to it, is treated in
Sir W. Hamilton’s _Discussions on Philosophy_, p. 205-240 (reprinted
from Edinburgh Review, No. 53, March 1830). Strauss has also
published two works on Hütten, the one a memoir, 1858; the other
translations from his work, 1861. (See _National Review_, No. 12,
April 1858.)

318 Servetus, though a Spaniard by birth, learned his protestantism in
Italy; Castellio, Ochino, and the Sozini were Italians. See Hallam’s
_History of Literature_, i. 366, 379; 552 seq.: for their views
Merle D’Aubigné’s “_Three Discourses on the Authority of the
Scripture_.” On the Reformation in Italy see Quinet’s _Œuvres_, vol.
iv. b. iii. ch. 1; and Professor Blunt’s _Essays_, p. 89, (essay
reprinted from _Quarterly Review_, January 1828.)

319 It is important to notice that the question asked by the reformed
churches was simply, what did the inspired apostles teach? and the
dispute between them and the Roman catholics referred to the
question, what source was most suited for supplying information on
this point;—whether ecclesiastical tradition or the original
documents of the inspired teachers themselves.

320 See Hallam, _History of Literature_, i. 315. A large portion of
Renan’s _Averroes_, viz. pp. 322-432, is devoted to this subject,
and is the source of much of the following information.

321 Renan, id. (122-8.)

322 Renan, id. (353-67.)

323 He lived about A.D. 200.

324 On Pomponatius (1462-1530), see Ritter’s _Gesch. der Ch. Phil._ V.
pp. 390 seq.; Hallam’s _History of Literature_, i. 315; Renan,
_Averroes_, 353, &c.; Tennemann, _Manual_, § 293; and the Life in
the _Biographie Universelle_. His theological treatise which was
chiefly suspected was _De Immortalitate_; but Brucker quotes from
his other writings to prove atheism. As early as 1512 a Lateran
council took notice of the disbelief of immortality.

325 In place of the scholastic philosophy, which was disappearing, but
which lived in Padua nearly a century later than in the rest of
Europe, three tendencies manifested themselves; viz., (1) a
reconstruction of metaphysical philosophy, on a new, partially
Platonic basis; (2) a reconstruction of logic, by P. Ramas in France
(see Hallam, _History of Literature_, i. 388-90); (3) attention to
experimental science, which led ultimately to the experimental
method of Bacon. Telesius and Campanella belong to the first of
these classes. The system of the former is briefly explained in
Ritter’s _Christliche Philosophie_, p. 561 seq.; Renouvier’s
_Histoire de Philosophie_, t. 2; and in Hallam, _History of
Literature_, ii. 7; and of the latter in Hallam, id. (372-6);
Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 317; and Ritter, id. vi. 3, seq. Both
systems are metaphysical rather than theological. That of Cesalpini
is also explained in Ritter, id. v. 653, seq.; in Hallam, id. ii. 5;
that of Cardan in Brucker, period iii. part ii. lib. l. c. 3; Buhle,
_Gesch. der Neu. Phil._ ii. 857, seq.; and in Morley’s _Life of
Cardan_ (1853).

326 Giordano Bruno (1550-1600), Ritter’s _Chr. Phil._ v. 595. &c. See
Hallam’s _Hist. of Lit._ ii. (8-14.) Buhle’s _Geschichte der Phil._
ii. 703. His life and opinions have been described by Mr. G. H.
Lewis in the _Biogr. Hist. of Phil._ p. 314, seq. A list of his
works is given in _Buhle Gesch. der Neu. Phil._ ii. 703, seq., and
more briefly in Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 300. They were collected and
published in 1830. One of them, the “_Spaccio della bestia
trionfante_,” being very scarce, and only known by report, was
formerly thought to be a translation of the celebrated work “De
Tribus Impostoribus.”

327 In his travels he reached Oxford, and was admitted to lecture in the
university.

328 Lucilio Vanini (1586-1619.) His chief works were “Amphitheatrum
Æternae Providentiæ,” and “De Admirandis Naturæ Arcanis.” The latter
was condemned by the Sorbonne. Full particulars are given in
Brucker’s _Hist. Phil._ period iii. part ii. 1. i. ch. 6. See also
_Buhle, Gesch. der Neu. Phil._ ii. 866, seq.; and the Life in the
_Biographie Universelle_.

329 On this reaction, see Hallam, _Hist. of Lit._ i. (536-44).

330 This revival is at the same time the proof of the existence of
doubt. Staüdlin, in Eichhorn’s _Geschichte der Lit._ vol. vi. p. 24
seq. enumerates treatises of this kind by Ficinus, Alfonso de Spina,
Savonarola, Æneas Sylvius, and Pico di Mirandola. The rare work of
Sebonde also, which has been supposed to be deistical, is really a
treatise on natural religion as an evidence of revealed. See
Hallam’s _Hist. of Lit._ i. 139, 40; Tennemann’s _Manual_, 277.

331 On Socrates, see Grote’s _History of Greece_, vol. viii. ch. 68.

332 On Bacon and Descartes see Ritter, _Christliche Philosophie_, v. 309
seq., and vii. 3 seq., Buhle iii. (1-86), Tennemann’s _Geschichte_,
x. 200 seq.; and the references given in Tennemann’s Manual, § 312
and 333. Among English sources, see Morell’s _History of
Philosophy_, i. 76, 166; Lewes’ _History of Philosophy_, Hallam’s
_History of Literature_, vol. ii. part 3. ch. 3. On Descartes, see
also Bouillet’s _Histoire de la Revolution Cartesienne_ (1842) p.
95-144; and on Bacon, the monograph by Kuno Fischer of Jena,
translated 1857.

333 In chronological order Herbert and Hobbes ought to come before
Spinoza. Indeed their works furnished suggestions to him; but as the
forms of scepticism which follow are arranged by nations, it is more
convenient to place Spinoza here alone previously to treating the
others.

334 The best means of understanding Spinoza is the perusal of his own
works. It is only in modern times that he has been understood. The
old works against him, Reimannus (_de Atheismo_), Mansveldt,
Cuperus, and Kortholt (_de Trib. Impostoribus_), are chiefly
obsolete. A memoir exists by Colerus, 1706. Among the moderns he has
been carefully studied by E. Saisset, both in _Essais de Philosophie
Religieuse_, 1859, and in a dissertation prefixed to a translation
of his works, 1861, and in a learned article in the _Revue des Deux
Mondes_ for Jan. 1862; also by Damiron, _Essai sur Spinoza_. Among
English writers, see Hallam, _History of Literature_, iii. 344 seq.,
Lewes’ _History of Philosophy_, and an article on the
Theologico-Politicus in the _British Quarterly Review_, No. 16, for
Nov. 1848, referring to Spinoza’s theology. In Germany his opinions
have been examined by Ritter, _Chr. Phil._ vii 169 seq.; Buhle iii.
503 seq.; Tennemann’s _Geschichte_, x. 462 seq. Schleiermacher in
early life expressed his opinion of him in words of extravagant
eulogy, (_Reden über die Relig._, p. 47, quoted in Lewes’ _History
of Philosophy_.) Consult also the various references given in
Tennemann’s Manual, § 338. A volume of Spinoza’s writings has lately
been found and published, which is made interesting by a photograph
from a rare portrait of him.

335 In the admirable article in the _Revue_, quoted in the last note,
Saisset discusses carefully the sources from which Spinoza derived
his theology and philosophy. Cousin in earlier life had regarded his
philosophy as borrowed from Descartes (_Fragm. de Phil. Cartes._, p.
428 seq.), and Ritter coincides in this opinion. More recently, in
the new edition (1861) of his _Hist. Gen. de la Philos._, he regards
it as borrowed from Maimonides (p. 457.) See on Maimonides’
Philosophy, Adolph. Franck’s _Etudes Orientales_, p. 318. Saisset
after a careful examination comes to the conclusion that the
theology was suggested by Maimonides’ _More Nevochim_, but that the
philosophy was derived neither from the Kabbala, nor Averroes, nor
Maimonides, but from Descartes.

336 See the references given in a former note.

337 Compare the Essay on Cousin by Sir W. Hamilton (Dissertations, p.
32).

_ 338 Ethica_, part ii. prop. 1 and 2.

339 P. 100.

_ 340 Theol. Polit._ c. vi.

_ 341 Ep._ xxi. vol. iii. p. 195. (Lips. ed. 1846.) It will be hereafter
seen how exactly this result is parallel to the religious philosophy
and Christology developed in the Hegelian school. See Lect. VII.

342 A succinct account of the contests in Holland is given in C.
Butler’s _Life of Grotius_, c. 5, 6, 12. See also Amand Saintes,
_Histoire de la Vie Spinoza_, p. 63; Hase’s _Church History_, E. T.
§ 356; Hagenbach, _Dogmengeschichte_, § 235.

343 A good analysis for an English reader may be found in the article
quoted above from the _British Quarterly Review_.

_ 344 Theol. Pol._ ch. 19, 20. The idea here is borrowed from Hobbes.

345 Ch. 1-6.

346 Ch. 7-12.

347 Ch. 13-15.

348 Ch. 1, 2.

349 Ch. 3.

350 Ch. 6.

351 Ch. 8.

352 Ch. 12-14.

_ 353 De Veritate._ See Lect. IV.

354 Great critical sagacity is evinced in describing the characteristics
of prophecy (ch. i. and ii.), and the historic peculiarities of the
Pentateuch (ch. viii.); which however, it would seem, had been
observed partially by some of the learned Dutch theologians of the
time.

355 This lay at the bottom of the opposition which Buxtorf and Owen
offered to the view, now universally adopted, of Capellus and
Morinus, that the vowel points were a late introduction in Hebrew,
perhaps of the sixth to the tenth centuries A.D. The history of the
controversy is given in Walch’s _Bibliotheca Theol. Select._ vol.
iv. p. 244, 268; and Wolf’s _Bibliotheca Hebr._ part iv. p. 7; part
ii. p. 25 and 270. The _Formula Consensus_ of the Helvetic church
(1675), (on which see Schweizer in Herzog’s _Real. Encycl._ xi. 439
seq.; Henke’s _Kirchengeschichte_, vol. iv. § 34; Hagenbach’s
_Dogmengesch._ § 222), was partly designed against the views of
Capellus. On the question of the vowel points, consult the
_Prolegomena_ to Walton’s Polyglot, iii. 39; Carpzov. _Crit. Sacr._
242 seq. Wolf’s _Bibliotheca Hebraica_, ii. 475; iv. 214 seq.; and
among the moderns, Gesenius’s _Gesch. der Hebr. Sprache_, § 48.

356 E.g. in Le Clerc. See _Sentimens de Quelques Theologiens d’Hollande
sur l’Histoire Critique du père Simon_, and his Five Letters on
Inspiration; and in the French Roman catholic critic, R. Simon, in
reference to whom see note on p. 83.

357 E.g. by Dr. Lee on _Inspiration_, Lect. I.

358 Compare Dr. Lee’s learned and valuable work on Inspiration, ch. iv.
The writer of this lecture need hardly say, that he cordially and
reverently believes in the miraculous character of scripture
inspiration; and that the remarks here in the text are only aimed at
the extravagant views held in the seventeenth century, such as that,
above named, in reference to the Hebrew vowel points. No Christian
however ought to fail to appreciate the deep reverence for holy
scripture implied in the theory from which dissent is here
expressed.

359 A note, giving proof of the fact here stated, will be found at the
end of Lect. VIII.

360 Wordsworth, _Ecclesiastical Sonnets_, part ii. 47.

361 See above p. 11.

362 This computation regards lord Herbert of Cherbury as marking the
commencement, and Hume the close; the doubters of the latter half of
the eighteenth century, such as Gibbon, being excluded, because
their writings are marked by the forms of French unbelief.

363 The former in the struggle of Arminians and Calvinists in the
Puritan controversy; the latter in the revolution supposed to be
caused in our literature by the influence of Dryden.

364 In addition to the references given in Lect. III. (p. 106) see
Cousin’s _Hist. de la Phil. au 18__e__ siècle_ (Leçon 3); and
Remusat’s _Essai sur Bacon_, 1857; but especially the sketch of the
relation of Bacon’s philosophy to religion in K. Fischer’s monograph
on Bacon. (c. x. and xi.)

365 This inquiry was called forth in the disputes of the established
church against popery and puritanism, and led to works in favour of
toleration by Chillingworth, Bp. Jeremy Taylor (_Liberty of
Prophesying_), and later by Milton; and towards the close of the
century by Locke.

366 Hobbes’s _Leviathan_ was not published till 1651; but the thoughts
were evidently suggested by the woes of the reign of Charles I.

367 Herbert (1581-1648). His works were, _De Veritate_, 1624, _De Causis
Errorum_, 1645, _De Religione Laici_, _De Religione Gentilium_,
1663. An autobiography was published in 1764. He was answered by
Locke (_Reason. of Christianity_), Baxter, Halyburton, Leland
(_Deists_, lett. 1 and 2), and Kortholt; and his philosophy was
attacked by Gassendi. On Herbert see Ritter’s _Christliche
Philosophie_, vi. 390 seq.; Tennemann’s _Gesch._ x. 113 seq.;
Eichhorn’s _Gesch. der Lit._ 6, 95 seq.; Hallam’s _History of
Literature_, ii. 380 seq.; and Lechler’s _Geschichte des Englischen
Deismus_, p. 36-54; Remusat in _Rev. des. Deux Mondes_, 1854, vol.
iii. His views in some respects seem to have resembled those of
Pecock or Sebonde.

368 In its mode of treatment it has been compared to Bacon’s _Wisdom of
the Ancients_.

369 In the _De Veritate_.

_ 370 De Relig. Gentil._, 15. 199. App. to Relig. Laici, 2, 3.

371 There is a curious record in his journal (_Autobiography_, p. 171-3)
of an earnest prayer for guidance on the subject of the publication
of his first book _De Veritate_, which he no doubt saw was opposed
to popular belief.

372 Lechler, _Geschichte des E. D._ p. 64.

373 Because they bear, as he thought, the great test of being
self-evident. It will be remembered that the _clearness_ of an idea
was the test of the innate character of it in Descartes’ system
(_Principia Philosophiæ_, § 10). Such ideas are those which would be
regarded in Kant’s system as necessary forms of thinking, and in
Cousin’s as belonging to the impersonal reason.

374 Hobbes (1588-1679). The _Leviathan_ is a philosophy of society,
studied as the development of the individual. He first treats of the
individual, book i.; then the commonwealth, book ii.; then the
Christian commonwealth, book iii.; and the kingdom of error, book
iv.; borrowing the idea from Augustin’s _De Civ. Dei_. The brevity
of the notice in the text prevents the possibility of doing justice
to the grandeur and to the good sense shown in many respects in
Hobbes’s works. He was answered by Cudworth (_Intellectual System_);
Cumberland (_De Leg. Nat._); Dr. Seth Ward; Bramhall, (1658);
Archbp. Tenison, 1760; and Lord Clarendon, in his _Survey of
Leviathan_ (1676). For an explanation and criticism on his
philosophical principles, see Ritter, ch. vi. 453 seq.; Tennemann,
b. x. 53 seq.; Lewes’ _History of Philosophy_; Morell’s Id.; Hallam,
b. ii. 463 seq.; and on his religious opinions, Leland (ch. iii.),
and Lechler (p. 67-107).

375 Part i. c. 12.

376 Part iii. c. 39.

377 Part iii. c. 33.

378 Coward (1657-1724 circ.) was a physician, who wrote in 1702 _Second
Thoughts on Human Souls_, apparently intended to disprove the
existence of spirit and natural immortality, but not of immortality
itself as a divine gift from God to man, though opponents
disbelieved him in this assertion. The list of answers written is
given in Chalmers’s _Biographical Dictionary_ under _Coward_. The
house of commons in 1704 condemned the book, and caused it to be
burned.

379 Spinoza’s view of religion is the part suggested by Herbert, and his
view of the relation of the state to religion that suggested by
Hobbes.

380 See Note 21 (p. 413).

381 C. Blount (1654-93) wrote the _Anima Mundi_, 1679; _Life of
Apollonius Tyana_, 1680; _Oracles of Reason_, 1695. (See Macaulay,
_History of England_, vol. iv. 352.) He was refuted by Nichols
(1723) _Conference with a Theist_. See Lechler (114-124), and
Leland, ch. iv.

382 The Licensing Act of 1662 concerning the press was allowed to expire
in 1679. When James II. came to the throne (1685) the censorship was
renewed for seven years; and again in 1693 was revived for two
years, at which time it finally expired. See _North British Review_,
No. 60, (May 1859.)

383 As proved by his work in 1705, _The Deist’s Manual_.

384 The _Oracles of Reason_ (1693) consists of sixteen papers in several
letters to Mr. Hobbes and others, by Ch. Blount, Gildon, and others.
Papers (No. 1-4) are a defence of T. Burnet’s archæology, or on
subjects cognate to it. No. 5 is concerning the deist’s religion; 6
on immortality; 7 on Arians, Trinitarians, and Councils; 8 that
felicity is pleasure; 9 of fate and fortune; 10 of the original of
the Jews; 11 of the lawfulness of marrying two sisters successively;
12 of the subversion of Judaism, and the origin of the Millennium;
13 of the auguries of the ancients; 14 of natural religion; 15 that
the soul is matter; 16 that the world is eternal.

385 No. 14.

386 No. 5.

387 Attention had been called a little earlier to the consideration of
the first principles of religion, by the Platonizing Cambridge party
of More and Cudworth, followers partly of Descartes. See Burnet’s
_Mem. of his Times_, i. 187; and the Rev. A. Taylor’s able
introduction to the edition of _Simon Patrick’s Works_, Oxford 1858,
(p. 28-42).

388 On Locke’s philosophy see Ritter _Chr. Phil._ vii. 449-534; Cousin’s
_Hist. de Philos. au 18e siècle_, ch. 15-25; Morell’s _Hist. of
Phil._, vol. i. p. 100 seq.; Lewes _Id._: Lechler, 154-179. His work
the _Reasonableness of Christianity_ typified the tone of the
writers on the Christian evidences for the next half century.

389 For this and the next named controversy, see Lathbury’s _Non-Jurors_
(1845), ch. iv., and _History of Convocation_, ch. 12-14.

390 On the Bangorian controversy (1717, 18), see Hallam’s
_Constitutional History_ (vol. ii. 408). A list of the pamphlets
which were written during the controversy was made by the
antiquarian Thomas Hearne, and is printed in Hoadley’s works (3
vols. fol. 1773). See vol. ii. 381, and the continuation in vol. i.
689.

391 Toland (1669-1722). He was born an Irish catholic, turned
protestant, wrote his first deist book, 1696; fled for refuge to the
court of Hanover, and found protection there; wrote political
pamphlets, and lived abroad till near the close of his life. His
chief theological writings are, _Christianity not Mysterious_, 1696;
_Amyntor_, or Defence of the Life of Milton, 1699 (on the Canon);
_Nazarenus_, 1718; _Tetradymus_, 1720; _Pantheisticon_, 1720, sive
formula celebrandæ sodalitatis Socraticæ, 1720, a parody on the
Christian service books. These are collected in his _Miscellaneous
Works_ (1726). (Vol. i. contains his translation of the Spaccio of
Bruno.) He was answered by John Norris, Archbp. Synge, and Dr. Peter
Browne; by S. Clarke, and by Jones in his work on the Canon. Consult
Leland’s _View of Deistical Writers_, Lett, iv.; Lechler (180-210),
and (463-73), and note on p. 193.

392 In his _Christianity not Mysterious_.

393 In his _Amyntor_.

394 For these facts see the Memoir of Toland prefixed to his
_Miscellaneous Works_, and also Chalmers’s _Biographical
Dictionary_.

395 This opposition increased Toland’s bitterness, for, in the following
year, 1698, in publishing a Life of Milton, and taking occasion to
disprove that Charles I was the author of the Ikon Basilike, he
threw out hints of similar forgeries in works attributed to the
apostles. The hatred of churchmen was further increased by this
work.

396 See Wilkins’s _Concilia_, vol. iv., 631; Burnet’s _History of his
own Times_, vol. iv. 521; Lathbury’s _History of Convocation_
(1842), p. 288 seq.

397 Sect. i.

398 Sect. ii. ch. 1.

399 Id. ch. 4.

400 Ch. 1, 2.

401 Sect. iii. ch. 2.

402 Ch. 3.

403 Ch. 5.

404 Cfr. his _Apology for Christianity not Mysterious_ 1697, and also a
letter from Mr. Molyneux to Locke (Locke’s Works, ed. 1723, vol.
iii. p. 566), quoted in the memoir (p. 17) prefixed to Toland’s
_Miscellaneous Works_.

405 In his Life of Milton (1698) pp. 91, 92, he had alluded to works
falsely attributed to Christ and the apostles. This was attacked by
Blackhall as if intended against the canonical scriptures, and was
defended by Toland by the publication of the _Amyntor_, a catalogue
of books mentioned by the fathers as truly or falsely ascribed to
Jesus Christ, his apostles, &c. The learned Pfaff calls it “insignem
Catalogum” (_Diss. Crit. Nov. Test._ ch. i. § 2).

406 A Memoir of Lord Shaftesbury (1671-1713), has been lately published
(1860). His chief work was the _Characteristics_. On his religious
views see Leland ch. 5 and 6; Lechler 243-265; and on his
philosophical views, see Ritter vii. 535 seq.; Eichhorn, _Geschichte
der Literatur_, vi. 424 seq.

407 On his moral system, see Mackintosh’s _Dissertation on Ethics_, p.
158-166; and on Butler’s ethical system, and its relation to
Shaftesbury, see the same work, p. 171 seq.

408 Works, vol. ii. _Inquiry concerning Virtue. Charact._ ii. 272 etc.

409 The readings of the text had been disturbed by Courcelles (1658),
and by Walton in his Polyglot, which caused an alarm, on which see
Hody (_De Bibl. Text._ 563 seq.), but not widely till Mills, 1707.
Mills’ readings were attacked by Whitby in 1710, and the arguments
of the latter were afterwards turned by Collins against Revelation.

410 In 1699. Daillé’s criticism on the Ignatian Epistles (1666) had
shown similar sagacity to that afterwards displayed by Bentley, and
bore to his inquiries the same relation which those just named in
the test bore to those of Mills.