Chapter XXII: Part 22

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

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

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

708 i.e. from about 1790 to 1810.

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

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

711 Kant lived 1724-1804. On his philosophy see Chalybaus, _Hist. of
Speculative Philosophy_ (translated 1854); Am. Saintes’ _Philos. de
Kant_, 1844; Cousin, _Leçons de la Phil. de Kant_, 1843. A good
account of it also is given in Morell’s _Hist. of Philosophy_, i.
233-63, in R. Vaughan’s (sen.) Essays, and in a Lecture by Professor
Mansel on the _Philosophy of Kant_, 1860. See also the references in
Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 387-94. In reference to its theological
effects, see Am. Saintes’ _Critical History of Rationalism_, ii. 5
and 6; Bartholmess, b. V. and vi. The parts of Kant’s writings which
are of special importance for ascertaining his theological views
are, his work _Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen
Vernunft_, 1793, and his criticism on natural theology in the
_Kritik der reinen Vernunft_, b. ii. div. 3. See Strauss, _Leben
Jesu_, introd. § 7. Staüdlin, Ammon, and Tieftrunk, were Kantist
theologians.

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

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

714 This appears in his _Kritik der practischen Vernunft_.

715 Illuminism is used as the translation of _Aufklaerungs-Zeit_.

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

717 Such as Schleiermacher.

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

719 K. G. Bretschneider, 1776-1848; General Superintendent at Gotha. A
short autobiography was published after his death, which is
translated in the _Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1852-3. His best work is
the _Handbuch der Dogmatik_, 1814, 1838. He was the writer of the
_Probabilia_ concerning St. John’s Gospel, named in Lect. VII.

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

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

722 As Woolston, Bolingbroke, and Voltaire. Cfr. Strauss, _Leb. Jes._
Introd. § 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

734 On Fichte see Chalybaüs, ch, vi. and vii.; Tennemann, Manual §
400-5; Morell, ii. p. 89-122; Lewes, _History of Philosophy_;
Mansel’s art. _on Metaphysics_ in _Encycl. Britan._ p. 607. On
Jacobi see Chalybaüs, ch. iii.; Tennemann, § 415; Morell, ii. 402;
Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. xiii.

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

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

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

738 1770-1831. See Lect. VII.

739 See some remarks on this point in Mr. Mansel’s _Lecture on the
Philosophy of Kant_.

740 Lect. VII.

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

742 Herder, 1744-1803. See a previous note. His most interesting works
were, the _Spirit of Hebrew Poetry_ (translated 1802), and the
_Philosophy of History_ (translated 1800).

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

744 See Hundeshagen, _Der Deutsch Prot._ § 12; Kahnis, p. 223.

745 This patriotism still lives in the poetry of Koerner.

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

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

748 On this second period, see Schwarz’s _Geschichte der Neuesten
Theologie_, b. i.; and for brief notices of the whole of the German
movement, see Hagenbach’s _Dogmengeschichte_ (period 5).

749 It has been more recently, for this reason, called the
Mediation-Theology (_Vermittellungs-Theologie_).

750 Schleiermacher (1768-1834). His _Leben in Briefen_ (1858) has been
recently translated. His philosophical and religious stand-point is
well discussed, and some portions of his works analysed, in the Rev.
R. A. Vaughan’s _Essays and Remains_ (reprinted from the _British
Quarterly Review_, No. 18). A brief explanation of his philosophy is
seen in Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, ii. 433, and Julius
Scheller’s _Vorlesungen über Schleiermacher_, 1844. His religious
views are criticised, with extracts, in Amand Saintes, part ii. ch.
xiv-xvi; Kahnis, 204 seq.; Lücke, _Stud. und Krit._ 1834, H. 4. The
facts of his life are given in the _Westm. Rev._ for July, 1861.

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

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

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

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

755 The Rationalist and Socinian element was taught by Wegscheider.

756 In 1802.

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

758 He died in 1834.

759 See note 31 (p. 428).

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

761 Cfr. _Glaubenslehre_, § 3-6.

762 Selbst bewuszt-seyn.

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

764 § 7-10; and also § 11-14.

765 § 129-131.

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

767 § 68.

768 § 104.

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

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

771 § 170-172.

772 The person of Christ is discussed § 93-99. Vaughan compares the view
with that of Justin Martyr. See also Strauss’s _Leben Jesu_, § 148.

773 § 121-125.

774 See Note 24 (p. 421).

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

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

777 Especially at Bonn, which was founded in 1818.

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

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

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

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

782 Introduction to the Life of Christ, § 6.

783 Preface to _Church History_ (first edition).

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

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

786 Lect. VII.

787 Perhaps the clearest account of the controversy will be found in
Michel Nicholas, _Etudes Critiques sur la Bible_, Essay i. 1862. See
also Hengstenberg’s _Authentie des Pentateuches_ (Die Gottesnamen im
Pentat. i. 181 seq.); Hävernick’s _Introd. to the Pentateuch_
(English translation), p. 56, &c.; Keil’s _Lehrbuch_, p. 82, &c.;
and Dr. S. Davidson’s _Introduction to the Old Testament_ (1862),
pp. 1-135.

_ 788 Conjectures sur les Memoires Originaux du livre de la Genèse_,
1753.

789 See Exodus vi. 3.

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

791 Jehovah is translated in the English version, the LORD.

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

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

794 There are two exceptions, viz. i. 21, xii. 9, which Hengstenberg
considers to prove the rule. On this subject see Hengstenberg’s
_Dissertation on Job_ in Kitto’s _Bibl. Cyclop._ ii. 122, now
reprinted in a volume of his Miscellaneous Essays.

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

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

_ 797 Geschichte des Hebr. Volk._ i. 75 seq.

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

799 Tennyson’s _In Memoriam_, § 95.

800 Matt. v. 6.

801 Rev. xix. 6

802 Lect. VI. p. 218.

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

804 See p. 237.

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

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

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

808 See Note 24 (p. 412).

_ 809 Leben Jesu_, 1835.

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

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

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

_ 813 Probabilia de Evangel. et Epist. Joannis origine et indole_, 1820.
The theory suggested was, that it was written in the second century.
It was well answered by Schott, Stein, and others. The controversy
has been revived in more modern times; the Tübingen school denying
the authorship to St. John, Ewald and others, asserting it. The
subject is discussed in Davidson’s _Introduction to the New
Testament_, i. 233-313. See also two articles in the _National
Review_, No. 1, July 1855, and No. 9. July 1857.

814 On the spirit of Kant’s philosophy in this respect, see Strauss’s
own remarks, _Leben Jesu_, Introd. § 7.

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

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

817 Strauss, _Leben Jesu_, § 152. (ii. p. 713.)

818 § 1-16. It contains a history of the different explanations of
sacred legends among the Greeks; the allegorical systems of the
Hebrews (Philo,) and Christians (Origen); the system of the Deists;
and the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist; the naturalist mode of Eichhorn
and Paulus, and the moral of Kant; lastly, the rise of the mythic,
both in reference to the Old and New Testaments. Then the discussion
of the possibility of myths in the Gospels, and a description of the
evangelical mythus.

819 § 1-142.

820 § 17-43.

821 § 44-110.

822 § 111-142.

823 § 143-152. The author gives the dogmatic import of the life of
Jesus, criticising the Christology of Orthodoxy, of Rationalism, of
Schleiermacher, the Symbolic of Kant and De Wette, the Hegelian; and
draws his own conclusions.

824 This idea is well brought out in Renan’s critique on Strauss.
(_Etudes Relig._ Essai iii.)

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

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

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

828 P. 241.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

838 E.g. Th. Mommsen.

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

840 An explanation and criticism of some of these opinions are given in
Davidson’s _Introduction to the New Testament_.

_ 841 Vermittellungs-Theologie_, and sometimes called _Deutsche
Theologie_. See Schwarz, book iii. ch. ii. The organs of this party
are the _Studien und Kritiken_ and the _Neue Evangel.
Kirchenzeitung_.

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

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

844 In the _Einleitung_.

845 Id.

846 Vol. i. period i. ch. i.

847 Id. ch. ii. and iii.

848 Epoche, Abth. 2.

849 Vol. ii.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_ 861 Die Innere Mission_, founded by Dr. Wichern.

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

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

864 It is enough to mention Schleiermacher’s _Glausbenslehre_, and the
works of Ewald; e.g. the prefaces to the poetical and prophetical
books, and his work, the _Geschichte des Hebr. Volkes_.

865 In Lecture V. (p. 194.)

866 See Damiron, _Essai sur l’Histoire de la Philosophie en France au
19__me__ siècle_, 1828; and Nettement’s _Hist. de la Litt. Franc.
sous la Restoration_, 1853, and _Hist. de la Litt. Franc. sous le
Gouvernement de Juillet_, especially b. v, vi, vii, xi; and a review
of Nettement in the _British Quarterly Review_, No. 37; also H. J.
Rose’s _Christian Advocate’s Publication_ for 1832.

867 See Morell’s _Hist. of Philosophy_, i. 543-72, and Damiron, pp.
(1-105).

868 Chateaubriand (1768-1848) wrote his _Génie du Christianisme_ in
1802. See Nettement, first work, quoted above, vol. i. b. x.; and,
second work, vol. ii. p. 330; and the criticism by Villemain, _La
Tribune Moderne_, ch. v.; and Sainte-Beuve’s _Portraits_, vol. x.

869 In his _Génie du Christianisme_.

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

871 1760-1825. See Morell, as above.

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

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

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

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

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

877 Comte’s chief work, the _Philosophie Positive_, has been well
translated in an abridged form by Miss Martineau, 1853. In reference
to him see Morell, _History of Philosophy_, i. 577, &c. and
important criticisms on his system in the following reviews, _Revue
des Deux Mondes_, by E. Saisset, 1850, vol. iii; _North British
Review_, No. 30, Aug. 1851; No. 41, May 1854; _British Quarterly
Review_, No. 38, April 1854. Comte’s later religious views are given
in the _Catéchisme Positiviste_, 1852, and the _Culte Systématique
de l’Humanité ou Calendrier Positiviste_ (1853).

878 Introduction, ch. i. (English translation.)

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

880 Book vi.

881 See note on the subject in Lecture VIII.

882 On Cousin, see Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, ii. 478 seq.

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

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

885 It has not been thought necessary to name Salvador the Jew, author
of _Hist. des Institutions de Moses_, 1828; _Jésus Christ et sa
Doctrine_, 1839; _Paris, Rome, et Jerusalem_. His writings were
criticised by Mr. H. J. Rose’s _Christian Advocate’s Publication_,
1831, and have been lately reviewed by the Semitic scholar A.
Franck, in a series of papers in the _Journal des Débats_, Jan. 24,
Feb. 12, May 29, June 4 and 6, 1862; and by Renan in the _Etudes de
l’Hist. Relig._ p. 189, &c. Salvador’s view is both Jewish and
sceptical. Magnifying the Jewish system, he regards Christianity as
an offshoot of it, imperfect in its kind; and looks to the spirit of
Judaism as the future hope for the world. He professes a creed which
is called by Franck _Infinitheism_. Whatever in his opposition to
Christianity is not derived from the eclectic school is the result
of his Jewish prejudices.

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

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

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

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

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

891 E. Renan, born 1823. His chief works are, _Histoire Générale et
Systèmes Comparés des Langues Sémitiques_, 1845; _De l’Origine du
Langage_, 1849; _Averroes_, 1851; _Job_, 1859; _Cantique des
Cantiques_, 1860; and Essays collected, viz. _Essais de Critique et
de Morale_, 1859; and especially _Etudes de l’Histoire Religieuse_,
1859, which contains a remarkable preface on the office of modern
criticism. A true criticism on the last two works may be seen in
_Blackwood’s Magazine_, Nov. 1861, used in these remarks; and
another by Scherer, _Mélanges de la Critique Religieuse_, ch. xv. He
is now writing on _Les Origines du Christianisme_. See _Fraser’s
Magazine_, October 1862.

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

893 At the close of _La Chaire d’Hébreu_, 1862, he has however assumed a
view of the world and of nature, less negative and more definite.

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

895 In Lect. V.

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

897 Such as Herbert and Morgan.