Chapter 2

as disproof of objections,) comes under the third, inasmuch as it offers a series of principles obtained by generalization from the natural and moral world, which furnish an antecedent presumption of the character of any revealed scheme. The remarks in the text relate to tho comparative weight to be given to the first and third of the four classes named above. The advantage of Butler’s argument over the other cases of internal _à priori_ evidence is, that it is founded on previous careful induction; the other kinds of anticipations are founded only on hasty empirical generalizations. For this view of the evidences, see Hampden’s _Introduction to the Philosophical Evidences of Christianity_; Davidson’s _Lectures on Prophecy_ (Introductory Lecture); and W. D. Conybeare’s _Lectures on Theology_, ch. i.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One work remains, written in the fourteenth century by Petrarch (_Opp. de Otio Religiosor_), which defends the truth of Christianity against Philosophers, Mahometans, and Jews: partly on the evidence of miracles, but mainly on the internal evidence of the purity and godliness of Christianity. In the early part of the fifteenth century, Raimond de Sebonde, professor of medicine at Barcelona, wrote his _Theologia Naturalis_, which was afterwards translated into French by Montaigne. It was charged with deism, but really was in spirit, as previously observed (p. 104), only like Locke’s _Reasonableness of Christianity_. See Hallam’s _History of Literature_, i. 138; Ritter’s _Christliche Philosophie_, iv. 658 seq. Another exists by Æneas Sylvius; another by Ficinus, 1450, _De Relig. Christianâ_, in which the evidence of prophecy and miracles is adduced; the arguments from the moral character of the apostles and martyrs, the wonderful spread of Christianity, and the wisdom of the Bible, are used; and a comparison is drawn between Christianity and other creeds.

In the close of the same century, as soon as printing became common, several similar treatises occur. One exists by Alphonso de Spina, _Fortalitium Fidei contra Judæos, &c._ 1487; also by Savonarola, _Triumphus Crucis, sive de Vera Fide_, 1497; also by Pico di Mirandola; and by Ludovicus Vives, _De Veritate Christianâ_, 1551. A carefully written account of all these is given by Staüdlin, in Eichhorn’s _Geschichte der Literatur_, vol. vi. p. 24 seq. See also Fabricius, _Delect. Argument_, ch. xxx.

The preceding works were mostly directed against the first of the two species of unbelief which belonged to this period, viz. the literary tendency (see Lecture III. p. 93, 94). A few however exist which were directed against the second species, which was connected with the philosophy of Padua. They are not so much general treatises, as works written against particular opinions, of Pomponatius, Bruno, or Vanini. An account of them may be found in the memoirs respectively published concerning these writers; the references to which are given in the notes to Lecture III. (See pp. 101-103.) The work of Mornæus, _De Veritate Religionis Christianæ adv. Atheistas, Epicureos, &c._ 1580, was probably suggested by this species of philosophy.

IV. The fourth great period, marked by the unbelief connected with the activity of modern speculation and the influence of modern discovery, commenced in the sixteenth century. The works of defence are so numerous that we can only give a brief notice of the principal writers and writings. A list may be collected, down to the respective dates of their publication, from J. A. Fabricius’s _De Veritate Rel. Christ._ c. 30; Pfaff’s _Hist. Litt. Theol._ ii. § 2; Buddeus’s _Isagoge_, pp. 856-1237; Walch’s _Biblioth. Theol. Select._ vol. i. ch. v. § 5-7: and the principal arguments are summed up in Stapfer’s _Instit. Theol. Polem._ 1744, vol. i. ch. iii. and vol. ii. Tholuck also has written a history of modern apologetic, _Ueber Apologetik und ihre Litteratur_ (Vermischte Schriften, i. pp. 150-376), and the Abbe Migne has published a most important collection of the principal treatises on apologetic in all ages, arranged in chronological order. It is contained in twenty vols. 4to. 1843. The title of the work is given below.(1077)

The work of Grotius, _De Veritate Religionis Christianæ_, is the one which opens the period of evidences which we are now considering; of which a notice may be found in Hallam’s _History of Literature_, ii. 364, and in Tholuck, _Verm. Schr._ i. 158; but no very definite cause can be pointed out why it was written. It was merely indeed one of the class of treatises already described (Notes 4 and 5), which devoted a portion of space to the controversy with the Jews and Mahometans. It is when a new standpoint had been assumed by scepticism, and the causes, intellectual or moral, which have been pointed out in these lectures, had begun to create a real peril, that writings on the evidences begin to derive a new value and assume a new form.

We shall give an account of them according to countries. THE ENGLISH WORKS OF EVIDENCE.—Those which were called forth in England by Deism were of several kinds. Perhaps they may be arranged under four heads.

The first class consists of specific answers to certain books, published from time to time; of which kind are most of those which are named in the foot-notes to Lecture IV. Waterland’s reply to Tindal is a type of this class. Occupied with tracking the opponent from point to point of his work, such replies, though important while the sceptical book is operating for evil, become obsolete along with the war of which they are a part, and henceforth are only valuable in literary history, unless, as in the special instance of Bentley’s _Phileleutherus Lipsiensis_ in reply to Collins, they are such marvellous instances of dialectical ability and literary acuteness that they possess a philosophical value as works of power, when their instructiveness has ceased.

A second kind consisted of homilies rather than arguments; sermons to Christian people, warning them against forms of unbelief, and regarding unbelief from a practical point of view rather than a speculative; and discussing, as would appropriately belong to such an object, the moral to the exclusion of the intellectual causes of doubt. Some of Tillotson’s sermons are an example of the highest of this kind of works. The value of this class is twofold: in a purely pastoral point of view, the suggestions which they contain concerning the moral causes of doubt being founded on the real facts of the human heart, and on the declarations of scripture, have a lasting value; and in a literary point of view, these works contribute to the knowledge of the state of public feeling of the time. This is seen in this instance. Until about the end of the seventeenth century, there is no clear perception, except among the very highest of this class of writers, of the particular character of the forms of doubt against which their remarks are directed. The general name, _Atheism_, is used vaguely, to describe every form of unbelief. This fact tells its tale. It witnesses to the consciousness that they lived in an age of restlessness, when change of creed was going on, and doubt was prevalent; but when unbelief had not shaped itself into form, and found as yet few organs of expression. We are reminded of the works before named of the fifteenth century (p. 93 seq. 104.) At that time doubt and restlessness prevailed, as we learn from the frequent references to it; yet the works which transmit the knowledge of it to us are few, and the allusions to it vague: while the works of evidence then written are directed against antiquated forms of it,—Mahometan, Jewish, or philosophical. In like manner, in the seventeenth age, we see, as we look back, that the Christian sermons were mostly directed against older forms of unbelief,—the atheism of the ancients, or of the Paduan school; and that the contemporary unbelief had not become definite enough to enable the Christian writers to apprehend its nature. This fact too explains another circumstance. The preachers evince a bitterness, which is not merely the rudeness common in that age on all subjects, nor the indignation which arises from solicitude for souls, common in all ages on a subject so momentous as salvation; but it is the bitterness of alarm. There is a margin in their expression of vituperation, which is only to be explained by the fact, that the absence of a clear statement of the grounds of doubt, such as was subsequently given in the eighteenth century, deprived the preachers of the means of understanding the alleged excuse for the prevailing doubt. They appear not to be conscious of the causes which could create in the minds of others a restlessness which they did not feel themselves. They seem like persons living in a state of political society, who are conscious of a vast amount of general dissatisfaction, and a suspicion of a plot against society, the authors of which are unknown, as well as the causes of their supposed grievances; and where the danger is necessarily heightened from the very absence of knowledge as to its precise amount.

A third class of the English apologies consists of works which have neither the speciality of the first class, nor the vagueness of the second. They were directed against special writers and particular books; but instead of being adapted as a detailed reply, chapter by chapter, to the special work, the authors of them seized hold of the central errors of the unbeliever, or the central truths by which he was to be refuted. The works of the two Chandlers against Collins, and Leland’s work on the deists, rise into this tone at times. Bishop Gibson’s later Pastorals against Woolston are a good type of it; and still better, many of the courses of Boyle Lectures; and above all, Warburton’s _Divine Legation of Moses_.

There is a fourth class of works, of a grander type, which resemble the one just named, in discussing subjects rather than books: but differ in that they are not directed against particular books or men, but take the largest and loftiest view of the evidences of Christianity. The first of this class, though a small one, is Locke’s _Reasonableness of Christianity_. The best examples are, _Things Divine and Human conceived of by Analogy_, by Dr. Peter Browne, 1733; and the _Analogy_ of Bishop Butler, in reference to the Philosophical Evidence of Christianity; with the works of Lardner and Paley in reference to the Historical. Books of this class are elevated above what is local or national, and are in some sense a κτῆμα ἐς ἀεί.

After this description of the different classes of works of evidence, it remains to give a brief notice of a few of the more important writers, especially of the two latter classes, in chronological order.

Omitting the repetition of those books named in the foot-notes of Lect. IV. which were directed against Herbert, Hobbes, and Blount, and which, as already remarked, belonged to the first of the four classes just named, and also the enumeration of the various sermons which belong to the second, we meet with the following writers:—Robert Boyle (1626-1691), an intelligent philosopher and devout Christian, who wrote works to reconcile reason and religion, suggested by the growth of new sciences; and with Ray, who first supplied materials for the argument for natural religion, drawn from final causes, 1691; and Stillingfleet, who investigated religion from the literary side, as the two just named from the scientific. Boyle not only wrote himself on the Evidences, but founded the Boyle Lectures,(1078) a series which was mainly composed of works written by men of real ability, and contains several treatises of value, as works of mind, as well as instruction. Among the series may be named those of Bentley (1692); Kidder, 1694; Bp. Williams, 1695; Gastrell, 1697; Dean Stanhope, 1701; Dr. Clarke, 1704, 5; Derham, 1711; Ibbot, 1713; Gurdon, 1721; Berriman, 1730; Worthington, 1766; Owen, 1769: all of which belong to the third of the classes named above, while one or two approach to the grandeur of the fourth.

Among separate treatises, the popular ones by the Non-juror Charles Leslie ([+]1722), _Short Method with the Deists_; Jenkins’s _Reasonableness of Christianity_, 1721; Foster’s _Usefulness and Truth of Christianity_, against Tindal; and Bp. Sherlock’s _Trial of the Witnesses_, against Woolston; Lyttelton on _St. Paul’s Conversion_; Conybeare’s _Defence of Revelation_, 1732; Warburton’s _Divine Legation of Moses_; are the best known. A complete list of the respective replies to deist writers may be found under the criticism of each writer, in Leland’s _Deists_, and Lechler’s _Gesch. des Engl. Deismus_. The great work of Bishop Butler, which appeared in 1736, has been sufficiently discussed in Lect. IV. p. 157 seq. It was the recapitulation and condensation of all the arguments that had been previously used; but possessed the largeness of treatment and originality of combination of a mind which had not so much borrowed the thoughts of others as been educated by them. Balguy’s works also, though brief, are scarcely inferior. (See his _Discourse on Reason and Faith_, vol. i. serm. i-vii; vol. ii. serm. ii, iii, iv; vol. iv. serm. ii. and iii.)

We have already pointed out (p. 207), that in the latter half of the century, the historical rather than the moral evidences were developed. The philosophical argument preceded in time, as in logic. First, the religion of nature was proved: at this point the deist halted; the Christian advanced farther. The chasm between it and revealed religion was bridged at first by probability; next by Butler’s argument from analogy, put as a dilemma to silence those who objected to revelation, but capable, as shown in Lect. IV. of being used as a direct argument to lead the mind to revelation; thirdly, by the historic method, which asserted that miracles attested a revelation, even without other evidence. The argument in all cases however, whether philosophical or historical, was an appeal to reason; either evidence of probability or of fact; and was in no case an appeal to the authority of the church.

Accordingly, the probability of revelation having been shown, and the attacks on its moral character parried, the question became in a great degree historical, and resolved itself into an examination either of the external evidence arising from early testimonies, which could be gathered, to corroborate the facts, and to vindicate the honesty of the writers, or of the internal critical evidence of undesigned coincidences in their writings. (See Note 48.) The first of these occupied the attention of Lardner (1684-1768). His _Credibility_ was published 1727-57. The _Collection of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies_ (1764-7.) The second and third branches occupied the attention of Paley; the one in the Evidences, the other in the Horæ Paulinæ.(1079)

Before the close of the century the real danger from deism had passed, and the natural demand for evidences had therefore in a great degree ceased. Consequently the works which appeared were generally a recapitulation or summary of the whole arguments, often neat and judicious, (as is seen at a later time in Van Mildert’s _Boyle Lectures_, vol. ii. 1805; and in a grander manner in Chalmers’s works, vol. i-iv.); or in developments of particular subjects, as in Bishop Watson’s replies to Gibbon and to Paine; (See p. 198, 199, note); or in Dean Graves’s work on the Pentateuch, 1807.

It is only in recent years that a new phase of unbelief, a species of eclecticism rather than positive unbelief, has arisen in England, which is not the legitimate successor of the old deism, but of the speculative thought of the Continent; and only within recent years that writers on evidences have directed their attention to it. In the line of the Bampton Lectures, for example, which, as one of the classes of annually recurring volumes of evidences, is supposed to keep pace with contemporary forms of doubt, and may therefore be taken as one means of measuring dates in the corresponding history of unbelief; it is not until about 1852 that the writers showed an acquaintance with these forms of doubt derived from foreign literature. The first course(1080) which touched upon them was that of Mr. Riddle, 1852, on the _Natural History of Infidelity_; and the first especially directed to them was that in 1858 by Dr. Thomson, on the _Atoning Work of Christ_; since which time only two courses, those of Mr. Mansel, 1858, on _The Limits of Religious Thought_; and of Mr. Rawlinson, in 1859,(1081) on _The Historical Evidences of the Truth of Scripture_, have been directed to the subject, the one to the philosophy of religion studied on its psychological side, the other to the historical evidences.

Among isolated works on evidences not forming parts of a general series, it is hard to make a selection without unfairness. We can only cite a few, premising that silence in reference to the rest is not to be considered to be censure, nor to mark the want of a cordial and grateful acknowledgment of the utility of many smaller works of evidences in the present day, dictated by deep love for Christ; whose authors, though omitted in this humble record, have their reward in being instruments of religious usefulness by means of their works, and are doubtless not unnoticed by a merciful Saviour, who looks down with love on all who strive to spread his truth.

The following seem to merit notice. First, the arguments in favour of natural religion, drawn from physical science, stated in the Bridgewater Treatises, analogous to the earlier works of Derham and Paley; the connection of science with revelation, in Cardinal Wiseman’s Lectures delivered in Rome, 2d ed. 1842, (which are a little obsolete, but very masterly;) several works by Dr. M’Cosh, _Divine Government,—Typical Forms_, &c. in which the author takes a large view of the world, and of the province of revealed religion in the scheme of general truth, founded mainly on Butler; also a work of Dr. Buchanan, _Modern Atheism_, valuable for its literary materials as much as for its argument; and of T. Erskine on the Internal Evidences, 1821. The Bampton Lectures of Mr. Miller in 1817 also deserve to be singled out as a thoughtful and original exhibition of the argument in one branch of the internal evidence; _The Divine Authority of Scripture asserted from its adaptation to the real state of human nature_; also Mr. Davison’s _Warburton Lectures on Prophecy_, 1825. Among works directed to special subjects, we ought to specify, _The Restoration of Belief_, by Mr. Isaac Taylor, intended indirectly against speculations such as those of the Tübingen school; and an able and thoughtful work on the subject of the superhuman character of Christ, _The Christ of History_, by Mr. Young; also E. Miall’s _Bases of Belief_; with the two Burnett Prize Essays by Thompson and Tullock; and a reply to Mr. Newman’s Phases of Faith, viz. _The Eclipse of Faith_, and _Letters of E. H. Greyson_, by H. Rogers, constructed however partly on the argument of the dilemma.(1082) The replies written to _Essays and Reviews_, especially _Aids to Faith_, ought to be added.

We have reserved for separate mention one work, which ascends to the philosophy of the religious question, Mr. Mansel’s Bampton Lectures, 1858, _The Limits of Religious Thought_, because it is a work which is valuable for its method, even if the reader differs (as the author of these lectures does in some respects) from the philosophical principles maintained, or occasionally even from the results attained.(1083) It is an attempt to reconstruct the argument of Butler from the subjective side. As Butler showed that the difficulties which are in revealed religion are equally applicable to natural; so Mr. Mansel wishes to show that the difficulties which the mind feels in reference to religion are parallel to those which are felt by it in reference to philosophy. Since the time of Kant a subjective tone has passed over philosophy. The phenomena are now studied in the mind, not in nature; in our mode of viewing, not in the object viewed. And hence Butler’s argument needed reconstructing on its psychological side. Mr. Mansel has attempted to effect this; and the book must always in this respect have a value, even to the minds of those who are diametrically opposed to its principles and results. Even if the details were wrong, the method would be correct, of studying psychology before ontology; of finding the philosophy of religion, not, as Leibnitz attempted, objectively in a theodicée, but subjectively, by the analysis of the religious faculties; learning the length of the sounding-line before attempting to fathom the ocean.

These remarks must suffice in reference to the history of Evidences in England. We shall now give an account of those which existed in France; which will be still more brief, because the works are considered to be of small general value, at least they have not a general reputation.

2. THE FRENCH WORKS OF EVIDENCE.—In the middle of the seventeenth century we meet with Pascal and Huet; both of them, metaphysically speaking, sceptics, who disbelieved in the possibility of finding truth apart from revelation;(1084) and with whom therefore the object of evidences was to silence doubt rather than to remove it. (On Pascal, see Rogers’s _Essays_, Essay reprinted from the _Edinburgh Review_, January 1847; and on Huet, an article in the _Quarterly Review_, No. 194, September 1855, and the reference given p. 19. Also see Houtteville, introduction to _La Religion Chrétienne prouvée par des Faits_, 1722.)

Among the Roman catholics, at the close of the same century, were the following: Le Vassor([+]1718); the two Lamy [+] 1710 and 15, and Denyse; and in the eighteenth century, Houtteville, whose preface to his own work, an historical view of evidences and attacks to his own time, has been just named; Bonnet; D’Aguesseau, [+] 1751; and Bergier [+] 1790: and among the Protestants,—Abbadie, [+] 1727; and Jacquelot, [+] 1708; nearly all of whom are treated of by Tholuck (_Verm. Schr._ i. p. 28) and Walch (_Bibl. Theol. Sel._ ch. v. sect. 6). Several more will be found in the _Demonstrations Evangeliques_; among which are Choiseul du Plessis, Praslin, Polignac, De Bernis, Buffier, Tournemine, and Gerdil; the Lives of several of whom are in the _Biographie Universelle_.

Though some of these were men whose works were of ordinary respectability, they were by no means a match in greatness for the intellectual giants who prostituted their powers on behalf of unbelief; and on one occasion, when a prize essay had been offered for a work in behalf of Christianity, no work was deemed worthy of it. (Alison, _History of Europe_, i. 180.) Since the beginning of the present century, however, there has been a change. Whatever may be thought of the line of argument adopted, the skill with which it has been put forward, and the ability of the minds that have given expression to it, is undoubted. Chateaubriand may be considered as the first who, with a full appreciation of the tastes and wants of modern society, tried to show not only the compatibility of Christianity with them, but that the perfection of society was only realized in it. The work of the Christian labourers who had to bring back France to Christianity was hard. It was not the apologist, acting, as in England, from the vantage ground of a powerful church against the Deist, who was making an attack on it; but it was a weak and feeble minority acting against a powerful mass of educated intellect. The apologists were indirectly aided by philosophy. The philosophers did not aim primarily at religious truth, and we have had reason to take exception to many of their views; yet they rekindled in France the elements of natural religion, on which the Christians then proceeded to base revealed. The works of Jules Simon are the highest expression of it. (See Note 44.)

The school of evidences that has existed, has been the church school of De Maistre, already described. (See Note 45, and the references given there.) With somewhat of the spirit of the writers of the fifteenth age, they have directed their efforts to reestablish the catholic church as the condition of re-establishing the Christian religion. To this we have already taken exception, Lecture VII. p. 300; and the remarks there given may suffice in reference to the movement. Yet the literary appreciation of the line of argument used by the older apologists, is perceptible in the large publication of Migne, already named.

The other attempt in France to re-establish Christianity by Protestant apologists, noticed in Lecture VII. p. 304, of which the ablest was Vinet, is rather directed against rationalism than against full unbelief; and aims to turn the flank of the rationalist argument, and, while accepting its premises, deny its conclusions. (On Vinet, see Note 46.) The problem which is now before the apologists is, not to show that Christianity is not imposture, but rather that it is not merely philosophy. (Compare the remarks of Strauss, at the close of his work on Reimarus, alluded to in Note 29. p. 427).

There now only remains the history of Apologetic in Germany.

3. THE GERMAN WORKS OF EVIDENCE.—As early as the end of the seventeenth century, we find the attention of Kortholt directed to Spinoza; and in the early part of the eighteenth we see, in the grand attempt of Leibnitz to find a philosophy of religion; in Haller, 1705-77; in Euler, 1747, (for which see Tholuck, _V. Schr._ ii. 311-362, together with a list of others there given,) a proof of the attention which the Evidences received. The existence of works like J. A. Fabricius’s _Delectus Argumentorum_, 1725; Reimannus, _Historia Atheismi_, 1725; Buddeus, _De Atheismo_, 1737; Stapfer, _Inst. Theol. Polem._ 1752; as well as the attention shown by the bibliographers, Pfaff, Walch, Fabricius, to the literature of Evidences, is a proof of the same fact.

The replies were still directed against Deism, as in England or France. It is not till later in the century that rationalism appears. When however it arose, writers were not wanting who opposed it. The history of the German theology has been treated so largely in Lectures VI. and VII. that it is only necessary to indicate the steps. The early deistic rationalism of Reimarus and Lessing met its opponents in contemporary writers named in the notes to Lecture VI. The critical rationalism of Eichhorn and Paulus was really answered by the later critics, as was shown when we noticed that criticism gradually abandoned their view, and rescued itself from their extravagant opinions (p. 257 seq.), while the dogmatic rationalism which was connected with it was dispersed by the discussion on the province of the supernatural already described (p. 418). In the present century the aspect of the attack and of the defence has changed. The question had been as to the existence of the supernatural.

In the present the question has been, If the supernatural be admitted, what is the capacity of man to discover it by the light of feeling or reason respectively, without revelation? Therefore, while in the last century it was important to show that the supernatural exists, and that the religion that taught it was not deception; in the present the endeavour has been, to bring men from the supernatural to the biblical, and to make them feel that the Christian religion is not a mere mistake. Thus they have been led from the natural to the supernatural; from the supernatural to the revealed; from the ideal to the historic.(1085) The steps of this process in the present century have been twofold:—the philosophical Christianity of Schleiermacher, and the revival of biblical religion. Neander has been already adduced (p. 364) as the type of the Christian movement which sought to unite the two: wishing to appropriate that which he believed, he strove to present Christianity as the highest form of the religious life; as a life based on a doctrine; the doctrine itself being based on a revealed history. It must suffice thus to have indicated, without tracing into detail, the apologetic literature which has been partly named in the Notes of the lectures, and may be found by consulting the references there given.

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

In all ages the purpose of Evidences has been conviction; to offer the means of proof either by philosophy or by fact. In arguing with the heathen in the first age, the former plan was adopted; the school of Alexandria trying to lead men to Christianity as the highest philosophy: in the middle ages the same method was adopted under the garb of philosophy, but with the alteration that the philosophy was one of form, not matter. In the later middle ages the appeal was to the Church: in the early contests with the Deists to the authority of reason, and to the Bible reached by means of this process; in the later, to the Bible reached through history and fact: in opposing the French infidelity the appeal was chiefly to authority; in the early German the appeal was the same as in England; in the later German it has been a return in spirit to that of the early fathers, or of the English apologists of the eighteenth century, but based on a deeper philosophy; an appeal to feeling or intuition, and not to reflective reason; and through these ultimately to the Bible.

Note 50. p. 373. On The History Of The Doctrine Of Inspiration.

The subject of the history of inspiration has been named both in Lect. III. and VIII. It may be useful therefore to point out the sources for the study of it.

The history of it is briefly sketched in Hagenbach’s _Dogmengeschichte_, § 32, 121, 161, 243, 292. A valuable catena of passages relative to the primitive doctrine of inspiration is given in Mr. Westcott’s _Introduction to the Gospels_, Appendix B. second edition, 1860; and a continuation of the history to more recent periods in Dr. Lee’s important work on Inspiration, especially in Appendices C and G; and in Tholuck’s Doctrine of Inspiration, translated in the _Journal of Sacred Literature_, July 1854.

It appears that the theories held respecting inspiration in different ages may be arranged under three classes:

1. The belief in a full inspiration was held from the earliest times, with the few exceptions observable in occasional remarks of Origen, Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Euthymius Zigabenus (in the twelfth century).

2. Traces after a time begin to appear of a disposition, (α) to admit that the inspiration ought to be regarded as appertaining to the proper material of the revelation, viz. religion; but at the same time to maintain firmly the full inspiration of the religious elements of scripture. This view occurs in the allusions of the writers just named, and existed in the seventeenth century in the Helmstadt school of Calixt in Germany, and the Saumur school of Amyrault, Cameron, and Placæus, in France; and is stated decidedly by a series of writers in the English church. Some of the latter go so far as to avow, (β) that the value of the religious element in the revelation would not be lessened if errors were admitted in the scientific and miscellaneous matter which accompanies it. This admission increased after the speculations of Spinoza and the pressure of the Deist objections.

3. A third theory was suggested by Maimonides, which was revived by Spinoza, and has been held among many of the rationalists in Germany, and has lately appeared in English literature: this theory is, that the book does not, even in its religious element, differ in kind from other books, but only in degree. It will be observed that a wide chasm separates this view from either of those named under the second head; the only point in common being, that in all alike the writers agree that the nature of inspiration must be learned from experience, and not be determined antecedently by our own notions of optimism, without examining the real contents of revelation. Coleridge would by many be considered to give expression to this third theory in his _Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit_. Perhaps however he hovered between it and the one previously named; being anxious rather to identify inspiration psychologically with one form of the Νοῦς or “Reason,” than theologically to confound the material of revelation with truth acquired by natural means.

It is not the purpose of this note to discuss the true view of inspiration; but merely to state the historic facts. The writer may however be allowed to repeat what has been already implied in the preface, that he dissents entirely from the third of these views. To him there seems evidence for believing that the dogmatic teaching implied on religious subjects in holy scripture is a communication of supernatural truth, miraculously revealed from the world invisible. Cfr. p. 29.

On the subject of inspiration, in addition to the works above named, instruction will be derived from the sources indicated in the Essay on Inspiration in Bp. Watson’s Tracts, 1785, vol. iv. pp. 5 and 469; and from Dean Harvey Goodwin’s Hulsean Lectures, first course, lectures vii. and viii. The first of the above-named views is stated in Gaussen’s work on _Theopneustie_, and on the Canon; the third in Morell’s [_Philosophy of Religion_], c. iv; and in the first three essays of Scherer’s _Mélanges de Crit. Religieuse_.

A list of those theologians who have held the second class of views above named, together with the extracts from their writings, is given by Dr. S. Davidson in his _Facts, Statements, &c. concerning_ vol. ii. of ed. x. _of Horne’s Introduction_, 1857; and Mr. Stephen, in his defence of Dr. R. Williams, 1862, has quoted some of the same passages, and added a few more (_Def._ pp. 127-160.(1086)) As the reader was referred hither from Lecture III. p. 114. for the proof of the assertion there made, that this theory had been largely held in the last century in England, it seems fair here to add the references. At the same time this list is not given with the view of endorsing the views of these writers, but merely to prove the accuracy of the assertion in the text of Lectures III. and VIII.

Among English divines, those who have asserted the form of the theory named above as No. 2 _a_, are, Howe (_Div. Author. of Scripture_, lecture viii. and ix.); Bishop Williams (_Boyle Lect._ serm. iv. pp. 133, 4); Burnet (Article vi. p. 157. Oxford ed. 1814); Lowth (_Vind. of Dir. Auth. and Inspir. of Old and New Testament_, p. 45 seq.); Hey (_Theol. Lect._ i. 90); Watson (_Tracts_, iv. 446); Bishop Law (_Theory of Religion_); Tomline (_Theology_, i. 21); Dr. J. Barrow (_Dissertations_, 1819, fourth Diss.); Dean Conybeare (_Theolog. Lect._ p. 186); Bishop Hinds (_Inspir. of Script._ pp. 151, 2); Bishop Daniel Wilson (lect. xiii. on _Evidences_, i. 509); Parry (_Inq. into Nat. of Insp. of Apost._ pp. 26, 27); Bishop Blomfield (_Lect. on Acts_ v. 88-90).

Among those who have gone so far as to hold the form of the theory above given as No. 2 b, are, Baxter (_Method. Theol. Chr._ part iii. ch. xii. 9. 4.); Tillotson (_Works_, fol. iii. p. 449. serm. 168); Doddridge (_on Inspir._); Warburton (_Doctr. of Grace_, book i. ch. vii); Bishop Horsley (serm. 39 on Ecc. xii. 7. vol. iii. p. 175); Bishop Randolph (_Rem. on Michaelis Introd._ pp. 15, 16); Paley (_Evidences of Christianity_, part iii. ch. ii); Whately (_Ess. on Diff. in St. Paul_, Ess. i. and ix; Sermons on Festivals, p. 90; _Pecul. of Christianity_, p. 233); Hampden (_Bampton Lect._ pp. 301, 2); Thirlwall (Schleiermacher’s _Luke_, Introd. p. 15); Bishop Heber (_Bampt. Lect._ viii. p. 577); Thomas Scott (_Essay on Inspir._ p. 3); Dr. Pye Smith (_Script. and Geol._ 276, 237. third ed.); Dean Alford (_Proleg. to Gosp._ ed. 1859) vol. i. ch. i. § 22.(1087)

It will be observed however, that both these classes of writers are separated by a chasm from those which belong to the third class above named; inasmuch as they hold inspiration to be not only miraculous in origin, but different in kind from even the highest forms of unassisted human intelligence.

INDEX.

_The figures refer to the pages, without distinction of text from foot-notes._

Abbé Paris, miracles of, 150.

Abélard; a nominalist, 9; character of, 81; works of, 81; _Sic et Non_, 82-84; different opinions concerning his scepticism, 84; a Biblical critic, 85.

Accommodation, principle of, 222; used by English divines, 223.

Acts, book of, controversy in Germany concerning, 367.

Ahmed Ibn Zain Elebedin, a Mahometan writer against Christianity, 389.

Alexander Hales (Alesius), a scholastic, 90.

Alexander of Aphrodisias, Pantheism at Padua derived from, 101.

Alexander of Pontus, named by Lucian, 47, 51.

Alexander VII. pope, prohibits Lucian’s Peregrinus, 50.

Alexandrian school of Fathers, 59; opinions held concerning the relation of Christianity to other religions, 386.

Allegory, distinguished from myth and parable, 269.

Allen’s _Modern Judaism_, 387.

Alphonso de Spina, treatise against Mahometans, 388.

_Amyntor_ of Toland, 129.

Angelo Mai, edition by, of Fronto, 48; of Porphyry’s letter to Marcella, 71.

Annet Paul, a Deist writer, 143.

Anselm, view of the Atonement, 69; works of, 461.

Apollinaris, 455, 456.

Apollonius of Tyana, 47, 62 seq. 408.

Apologetic, office of, 159.

Apologetic Lectures. See _Lectures_.

Apologies of early fathers, 453; Pressensé’s mode of classifying, 453; sources for studying, 454, 460; table of, 455; African school of, 457; Alexandrian school of, 457; peculiarity of and inferiority to modern, 460.

_Apprehend_, how distinguished from _comprehend_, 369.

Aquinas, his dogmatic position defensive, 9, 462.

Argens. See _D’Argens_.

Arian tendency in English church, 392.

Ariosto, sceptical jests in, 95.

Aristotle, criticism on Plato by, 42.

Arminius, 392; Arminians, Ib.

Arndt, J. a Pietist, 424.

Arnobius’s Apology, 458.

Arnold of Brescia, 85.

Arnold, German church historian, pref. xvii.

Ass, worship of, imputed to Christians, 405.

Association mental, works on, 355.

Astroc, first to distinguish documents in Genesis, 254.

Atheism, causes of in modern times, 358; history of the uses of the term, 413.

Athenagoras, apology of, 456.

Atonement, 335, 360, 366, 369, 386; literary history of, 368.

_Aufklürung-zeit_, 227.

Augustin on Porphyry, 62; _De Civ. Dei_, 459; comparison with Aquinas, 460.

Aurellus, Marcus, views of, 45.

Averroes, influence of, 90; altered tone of Christians towards, ib.; pantheism derived from, 100; threefold influence of, 101.

Avesta Zend, 382.

Bacon, influence of, 10; works respecting, 105; his philosophy of method, 117.

Bahrdt, disciple of Semler, 227.

Balguy, Dr. works on the Christian evidences, 467.

Bampton, John, 207.

Bampton Lectures, 37, 39, 366, 368, 385, 469.

Bangorian Controversy, 125.

Baronius, the church historian, pref. xvi.

Barre. See _La Barre_.

Bartholmess, _le Scept. Theol._ 19; _Hist. Crit._ 25.

Bartollocci, _Lexicon_, 386.

Basedow, institutions of, 219, 227.

Basle, theology of the university of, 444.

Bauer, Bruno, 275.

Bauer, L. 441.

Baumgarten-Crusius, 41, 442.

Baur, Chr. of Tübingen, work on Gnosis, 39; on Celsus, 50; on Apollonius, 62; theological position, 278; life and works, 436.

Bautain, abbé, 448.

Bayle, 168.

Bazard, the Simonian, 294.

Beard’s _Voices of the Church_, 273.

Beaufort, critic of Roman history, 144.

Bello, Italian poet, 95.

Bembo, cardinal, 96.

Benedictines on Abélard’s _Sic et Non_, 83.

Bengel, 17, 132.

Bentham, Jeremy, remarks on by J. S. Mill, 310.

Bentley, _Phalaris_, 132; _Phileleutherus Lipsiensis_, 464.

Berkeley, Bp. 149, 236.

Berlin, university of, 218, 241, 244.

Bernard, St. contest of with Abélard, 81, 82.

Berry Street Lecture, 466.

Beugnot, _Les Juiss_, 385.

Bhagavat Gitá, 382.

Bible, statement of modern difficulty on, 372.

_Biblia Pauperum_, 222.

Bibliander, collection of works against Mahometanism, 388.

Bibliolatry, origin of the term, 233.

_Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum_, 391.

Bibliotheca Sacra, 45, 250, 279, 436, 439, pref. xvii.

Biddle, J. the English unitarian, 392.

Bilderdyk, Dutch poet, 446.

Bini Carlo, Italian poet, 16.

Biographical treatment of doubt, use of, 32 seq.

Biran. See _De Biran_.

Blackball, against Toland, 129.

Blackwood’s Magazine on Renan, 302.

Bleda’s _Defensio Fidei_, 388.

Blount, C. the deist, 64, 123, 124.

Blount, Prof. works of, 369, 466.

Boccaccio, _Le Tre Aunella_, 89.

Boethius quotes Porphyry on predication, 56, 79.

Bolingbroke, works and opinions, 144 seq.

Bolton, Hulsean Prize Essay, 73, 451.

Bonald, 448.

Boone, Shergold, argument on divine attributes, 26.

Boulmier, Life of Bayle, 168.

Boyle, Robert, 207, 466.

Boyle Lectures, 466; list of several, 467.

Bretschneider, German Theologian, 231, 234, 268.

Bridgewater Treatises, 469.

British Quarterly Review, on Italian Renaissance, 94; on Spinoza, 106; on German theology, 232; on Schleiermacher, 241; on modern German theology, 284; on Comte, 295.

Browne, Dr. Peter, 466.

Brucker on Scholastic philosophy, 77.

Bruno Giordano, 102.

Buchanan on Atheism, 469.

Buckle, on the state of France in the eighteenth century, 164; on office of free thought, 349.

Buddeus, 419.

Buddhism, 46, 383, 385.

Buddhist pilgrims, 382.

Bunsen, Chevalier, 250.

Burgh, reputed a deist, 202.

Burnouf, Eugene on Zend, 381.

Burton, Dr. on Gnostics, 39, 40.

Butler, Bp. relation to Shaftesbury, 131; account of his works, 157 seq.; points in his _Analogy_ weakened, 157; attacks on the _Analogy_, 158; his originality, 158; his position, 362; Whewell on his Ethics, 369; value of, 451, 466, 467.

Butler, Charles, works of, 110, 164, 165.

Buxtorf, on Hebrew vowel points, 113.

Byron, Vision of Judgment, 95; his scepticism, 203.

Cabanis, 191, 290.

Cabbala, Franck on, 39.

Calas, the family of, 171.

Calderon, 95.

Campanella, 102.

Canon, date when fixed, 58; works on, 58; Toland on, 129.

Cantacuzene, 388.

Canz of Tübingen, 216.

Capellus, on Hebrew vowel points, 113.

Cappadose, 445.

Cardan, 102.

Carlisle, an unbeliever in the present century, 202.

Carlyle, T. his works and influence, 315 seq.

_Carmen Memoriale_, 385.

Causes in Christianity for a struggle with free thought, 1, 2; in the nature of man for ditto, 13-32; moral causes of doubt, pref. vii.; 13, 14-18, 348, 464; intellectual of ditto, 30; instances of, 17; why selected for study, pref., 345; peculiarity of analysis of them, 346; of unbelief in old heathens, 71; of ditto in the present age, 358; why the work is written, pref. xii.

Celsus, named, S; character and life, 50, 76; work of analysed, 50 seq.; discussed, 403; Pressensè on, 403.

Century, nineteenth, comparison of with third century A.D. 356, 357.

Chaldee letters, when introduced into Judæa, 385.

Chalmers’s works, 468.

Chandlers, the, against Collins, 466.

Change of tone in modern doubt, 308.

Channing, 392.

Charron, 168.

Chateaubriand, 291.

_Chissuk Emuna_, 386.

_Christianity not Mysterious_, of Toland, 127; _ditto as old as Creation_, of Tindal, 138.

Christianity, peculiarities in it which are the ground of attack by free thought, 1, 2. See _Cause_.

_Christian Remembrancer_, on French preachers, 300.

Christology of Strauss, 433.

Chronicles, Books of, works on, 17.

Chrysostom, compared to Bernard, 460.

Chubb, T. the deist, 142.

Church, see _History_, _English_, _French_.

Classification of German theologians, 439.

Claudius, 243.

Clement, the apology of, 457.

Clementines, the, 47, 400.

Clergy, education of in reference to doubt, 344.

Cocceius, allegorical interpretation of, 222.

Cocquerel, the two, 449.

Colani, 305, 448.

Coleridge, 25, 316; Mill on, 310; his system described, 330 seq.; literature concerning, 331; on inspiration, 474.

Collard, Royer, 447.

Collins, the Deist, on Daniel, 60; views of explained, 133 seq.

Combe, 312.

Communism, French, 292, 294.

Comparative study of religions, see _Religion_.

Comte, 32; system explained, 295 seq. 312.

Condillac, 148, 167.

_Conferences_ in Paris, history of, 300.

Congregational Lectures, 466.

Consciousness, the Christian, 246, 372.

Constant, Benjamin, _Polytheisme_, 44, 88; _De la Religion_, 387, 447.

Convocation, proceedings of against Toland, 128.

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 70.

Costa, see _Da Costa_.

Coteries in Paris in eighteenth century, 178, 421.

Courcelles, disturbs readings of the Text, 132.

Cousin, 22, 26, 27; on Spinoza, 107; system explained, 296 seq. 396, 447.

Coward, a materialist, 122.

Coward Lecture, 466.

Crescens, attack of on Christianity, 48.

Creuzer, on mythology, 450.

Criticism, two kinds of, pref. ix.; standard for in this work, pref. xi.; science of created by the Germans, 210.

Cyril, work of against Julian, 410, 459.

Da Costa, converted Jew at Amsterdam, 445.

Daillé, on Ignatian Epistles, 132.

D’Alembert, 178.

Damascenus, J. 388.

Damiron, pref. xx.; 191.

Daniel, Book of, Porphyry’s attack on, 60 seq.; commentators on, ib.; Greek words in, ib.; peculiarities of, ib.; difficulties concerning it stated, 407.

Dante on Averroes, 90.

D’Argens, work on Julian, 65, 177.

Darwin’s theory of species, 79.

Daub, German theologian, 265.

D’Aubigné of Geneva, 444.

Davidson, Dr. S. on Job, 5; on Inspiration, 474.

De Biran, 394, 447.

De Bonald, 448.

D’Eckstein, 448.

Deism, in England, 11; division of, 116, 126, 144; name explained, 118; peculiarities of English, 154; introduced into Germany, 214, 216, 217, 338, 415; compared with unitarianism, 328.

De la Monnaie, on the _De Tribus Impostoribus_, 412.

Deluge, difficulties on, 18.

De Maistre, 19, 300, 447.

Demoniacs, Semler on, 223.

_Dèmonstrations Evangeliques_, a collection of works on Evidences, 464.

De Prades, 177.

De Pressensé, see _Pressensé_.

Descartes, 10; works on, 106; method of, 117.

De Tracy, 191.

Dewar on German theology, pref. xxiv.

De Wette, 18, 252, 429.

D’Holbach, 181 seq.

Διαλεκτική of Plato, 78.

Diderot, life and works, 179 seq.

Difenbach’s _Jud. Convert._ and _Jud. Convers._ 386.

Difficulties, chief in the present day, 357, 366 seq.

Disputatio Jechielis, 385.

Dodwell, a deistical pamphlet of, 143.

Dogmatic theology in Germany in seventeenth century, 212.

Dolet, 168.

Döllinger’s Judenthum, 42.

Donnellan Lecture, 466.

Dorner’s _Person Christi_, 280; pref.

Dort, synod of, 212.

Doubt, causes of, see _Cause_, _Biographic_, _Change_, _Utility_.

Douglas, Bp. J. _Criterion_, 151.

Dragonnades, 165.

Dura, image of, 407.

Ecclesiastes, book of, 5.

Eclectic school in France, 297, 446; new school of, 301.

_Ecrasez l’infame_, explained, 175.

Edelmann, 227.

Edinburgh Review on Correlation of Force, 354; on mental association, 355.

Education of the clergy at the present time, 344.

_Education of the World_, Lessing not the real author of, 87.

Eichhorn, rationalism of, 232.

El, in composition of proper names, 431.

Eleatic schools, 84.

Ellis on _Divine Things_, 470.

Elohim, 255.

Emerson, remarks on, 317.

Encyclopædists in France, 180.

Enfantin, the St. Simonian, 294.

England, unbelief in, Lect. IV. and V.; modern forms of, Lect. VIII. and 329 seq.; books of, 338.

English church, subdivisions of the history of, 467.

English divines, seven chief, 289.

English, works of Evidences in, 465 seq. works on Inspiration, 475.

Epicureans, opinions of on religion, 42, 43.

Episcopius, 392.

Ernesti, 220.

Erskine’s Evidences, 469.

_Esprit fort,_ compared with _freethinker_, 416.

Essays and Reviews, 330, 336.

Este, Alphonso de, 228.

Ethical school, rise of in England, 146.

Eusebius on Porphyry, 56 seq.; reply to Hierocles, 408, 459, 460.

Euthymius Zigabenus, 388.

Evanson on the Gospels, 422.

_Everlasting Gospel_, Franciscan book so called, 86 seq.

Evidences, history of, 362; in early church, 453, 455; in the Alexandrian school, 364; alteration in, according to time and place, 41, 460; in the middle age, 461; at the Renaissance, 462; in France in eighteenth century, 194, 207, 470; in Germany, 365, 472; in England, 464; Butler, 157; modern books on, 343, 433; subdivision of history of, 452; two modes of studying, 451; external, 73, 451, 453; why less used in early church, 73, 453; internal, 444; value of in eighteenth century, 370; instances of value, 362, 364; logical force of, 15, 451; opposition to, whence, 208.

Ewald, 252, 258, 430.

Ewing, Greville, on Jews, 387.

Fabricius, J. A. 13; works on Jewish controversy, 386.

Fabricius, _J. Consid. Var. Controv._ 387.

Fairness necessary in the inquiry, 346.

Farmer on Demons, 202.

Fathers of the fourth century, 460.

Feeling used as a test of truth, 29, 30.

Félix, Père, 300.

Ferrara, court of, 228.

Feuerbach, 275.

Fichte, 236.

Ficinus, _De Rel. Christ._ 462.

Fiction modern, pantheistic character of, 318.

Fleury, the historian, pref. xvii.

Fleury, opinion on English literature, 169.

Fontenelle, 168, 193, 201.

Foreign Quarterly Review on Tholuck, 285.

Formula Concordiæ, 212.

Formula Consensus, 113.

Foscolo on Romantic epic, 94.

Foster, 467.

Fourier, 293.

Fox, W. J. _Religious Ideas_, 338.

Foxton, _Popular Christianity_, 338.

France, state of when infidelity arose in eighteenth century, 164; sources of freethinking in, 178; school at beginning of century, 290; evidences in, 470.

Franck on Cabbala, 89, 382; on Salvador, 299.

Francke, A. H. the Pietist, 424.

Fraser’s Magazine, on utilitarianism, 27; on pantheism in the university of Paris, 299; on Renan, 302.

Frederick II, blasphemy concerning three impostors, 88.

Frederick II, of Prussia, 176, 217.

Freethinker explained, 416.

Freethought, critical history of, pref. ix.; three kinds of, pref. v.; law expressing the mode of its operation, 6-11; four epochs of its action, 7-11; office of in history, 348, 352; political character of in middle ages, 76, 91; change in modern forms of it, 307, 352; use of inquiry into, 35 seq. 342; causes which made it turn into unbelief, 13 seq.

French church under Bourbons, 301.

French protestant church. See _Protestant_.

French revolution, religious aspects of, 188.

Fries, German philosopher, 252.

Fronto’s attack on Christianity, 48.

Galen, speaks of Christianity, 401.

Galileo, 350.

Gallican liberties, 165.

Gaussen, writer on _Theopneustie_, 444, 474.

Geddes, Dr. works of, 422.

Gellius Aulus, remark on Peregrinus, 49.

Genesis, De Wette on, 256.

Genthe, F. W. _De Impost. Relig._ 412.

Geology, difficulties arising from, 315.

Gerard on evidences, 55, 452.

Gerhardt, German hymn-writer, 424.

Germany; works of evidence in, 472; literature of, 210; patriotism in liberative war, 240; philosophy of, 235 seq.; theology of, subdivision of, 211; three periods in its history, 218; sources of, 439; classification of, 440.

Gfrörer, 436.

Gibbon, works criticised, 196 seq.

Gibson, Bp. Pastorals of against Woolston, 137, 466.

Gildon’s _Oracles of Reason_, 124.

Gnostics 8, 40.

Godwin, _Political Justice_, 200.

Goerres, German mystical philosopher, 241.

Göttingen, university of, 219.

Göze, opponent of Reimarus, 226.

Gospels, controversy on explained, 267, 268.

_Graffito blasfemo_, 405.

Grant, Sir A. on stoics, 45, 351.

Graves, on Pentateuch, 468.

Greece, state of in fifth century B.C. 351.

Greek words in the book of Daniel, 60.

Greg, W. R. _Creed of Christendom_ of, 321.

Gregory IX. pope, remark on Frederick II. 88.

Grimm, baron, 178.

Groen Van Printsterer. See _Printsterer_.

Gröningen party in Dutch church, 445.

Grote on Greek mythology, 5; on sophists, 42; on state of Greece in fifth century B.C. 351.

Grotius, _De Ver. Chr. Relig._ 464.

Grove on correlation of force, 354.

Guadagnoli, a writer against Mahometanism, 355.

Guhrauer, on Lessing, 426.

Guizot on Prayer, 395.

Gurlitt on Wolfenbüttel Fragments, 426.

Gustavus Adolphus association, 286.

Gutskow, 276.

Hadrian, mention of Christianity, 401.

Hävernick, 283.

Hagenbach, pref. xxiv.

Hallam, subdivision of historical inquiry by, 379.

Halle, pietistic oppostion to Wolff at, 215; university of, 219, 244; orphan-house at, 424.

Hamilton, sir W. criticism on Cousin, 28, 433.

Hampden, Bp. _Philosophical Evidences of Christianity_ on Butler, 157.

Hardwick, _Christ and other Masters_, 381, 382.

Harms’s Theses, 201.

Hartley, 148.

Hauréau on scholasticism, 80.

Heathens, ancient, opposition to Christianity, Lect. II,; religious tendencies among, 42 seq.; reaction in favour of, 44; parallel to the struggle with, 40, 73; few references to Christianity among, 400.

Hebrew monarchy, F. Newman on, 326; people, Ewald’s history of, 430.

Hegel, 237, 268; compared with Heraclitus, 433.

Hegelian philosophy, 263; contrasted with that of Schleiermacher, 265.

Hegelian school, subdivided, 266; young school of, 438.

Heine, H. the poet, 16, 276.

Helvetius, works, 181 seq.

Hengstenberg, 283; on Job, 5; on Pentateuch, 254.

Henke, pref. xvii.; 233.

Hennell, S., 198, 322, 323.

Herbart, German philosopher, creator of a realistic tendency, 438.

Herbert of Cherbury, works. 118 seq.

Herder, 228, 239.

Hermes, professor at Bonn, 240.

Hermias, apology of, 457.

Herzog’s _Real-Encycl._ 17, 228, 241.

Hey, professor at Cambridge, 392.

Hierocles. 62; Eusebius’s work against, 408.

Hieronymus, see _Jerome_.

Hieronymus Xavier, see _Xavier_.

Hilgenfeld, professor at Jena, 436.

Hindu, literature, 382; philosophy, 383.

Historic evidences of Christianity, 147.

Historic method of study in philosophy, 31, 379, 380, 396; the peculiarity of this age, pref. xiii.

History, threefold phase of, 2, 3, 379.

History of church, writers on, pref. xvii.

Hobbes, works, 121 seq.

Holland, sir H. on force, 354.

Holland, modern theology of, 445; remonstrants, 110.

Holsten, _Vita Porphyrii_, 56.

Holyoake, G. J. 312.

Hoornbeek, _Summa Controv._ 296, 382, 386, 393.

Hottinger, _Historia Orientalis_, 386, 389.

Houtteville, pref. xv.; 41, 62, 470.

Huet, 19, 59, 450, 470.

Hütten, Ulric von, 99

Hulse, founder of the Lecture, 207, 466.

Hulsius, 386.

Hume, 148 seq.; Essay on miracles, 150.

Hundeshagen, 10; pref. xxiv.

Hyper-Lutheranism, 284.

Iamblichus, life of Pythagoras by, 64.

Idea, first used in a subjective sense by Descartes, 422.

Idealism, difficulties arising from school of, 312.

Ideology explained, 185, 421.

Ignatian epistle, 49.

Illgen’s Zeitschrift, 87; on Reimarus, 426.

Illuminism, name explained, 227.

Imbonati, 386.

_Impostoribus, De Tribus_, legendary book so called, 89, 412.

Infidel, word discussed, 413.

Infidelity in France, 11; division of, 169; summary of, 193 seq.; in England after the French revolution, 200.

Infinity, different theories on our knowledge of, 108.

Inspiration, psychological analysis of, 29; view of in Germany in the seventeenth century, 113, 212, 333, 337, 373; history of, 473; opinions of English divines concerning, 475; literature of, 475.

Interpretation, history of, 221; Semler’s historic method, 221; methods of, 222; Strauss’s account of, 271.

Intuition, relation of to religion as a test of truth, 27-29, 394; compared with νοῦς, 331.

Isaac, Rabbin, 385.

Jacobi, German philosopher, 236, 238.

Jehovah, discussion on name, 255, 430; used in composition of Hebrew proper names, 431.

Jena, university of, 228.

Jenkins, writer on evidences, 467.

Jerome, passages of about Porphyry, 58 seq.

Jerusalem, temple of, Julian’s attempt to rebuild, 67.

Jerusalem, German theologian, 226.

Jewish controversy against Christianity, 12, 384 seq.

Jews, reformed, 387.

Joachim, author of _Everlasting Gospel_, 86.

Job, Book of, 5.

John of Parma, author of the preface to _Everlasting Gospel_, 86.

Jouffroy, French philosopher, 447.

Journal, Kitto’s; on inspiration, 473.

Journalism, French, 294.

Jowett, Professor, 62, 330, 382.

Julia Domna, 63.

Julian. S; life of. 64, 65, 72; acts of, 66; book against Christians by, 68, 410; rebuilding of temple by, 67.

Justin Martyr, 354, 384; apologies, 456.

Kahnis, work on German protestantism, pref. xxv.; 218.

Kant, relation of his view to religion, 27; compared with Abélard, 84; spread of his philosophy, 228; spirit of it, 269; theology of, 229 seq.; division of rationalists by, 416.

Keil on Chronicles, 17.

Kidder, _Demonstration of Messias_, 386.

Kingsley, C. 32, 46, 330.

Kirchenbund, and Kirchentag, 285.

Kirchoff, discoveries on contents of solar atmosphere, 355.

Kitto’s _Biblical Cyclæpedia_, on Job, 5; on Isaiah, 254; on Interpretation, 220; on accommodation, 222; on Daniel, 408.

Klose on Reimarus, 426.

Koerner, the poet, 240.

Koestlin, 436.

Kortholt, _De Relig. Mahom._, 370; _De Tribus Impost._ 412, 414; _Paganus Obtrectator_, 404.

Krebsius on Lucian, 402.

Kuenen, professor at Leyden, 446.

Labarre, 170.

Labbeus, _Concilia_, 87.

Laotantius, _Divin. Instit._, 458.

_Lake school of poetry_, 239, 309.

Lambert, St., 178.

Lamennais, 447.

La Mettrie, 177.

Landscape art of England, 309.

Lardner’s works, Lect. II. _passim_; pref. xix; 466, 468.

Larroque, sceptical works of, 299.

Latitude party in the English church in time of Charles II. 392.

Laurent’s works, 76.

Lavator, 243.

Laws of contradiction and sufficient reason, 215.

Lay scholars among reformers, 212.

Lechler, _Gesch. des Engl. Deismus_, pref. xx.

Leclerc on inspiration, 113.

Lectures apologetic, Boyle, &c. 466.

Lee, Dr. S., tracts on Mahometanism, 390; on German theology, pref.

Lee, Dr. W. on inspiration, 114, 473.

Leibnitz, philosophy of, 214.

Leipsic, school of, 219.

Leland on Deism, pref. xviii.

Leman lake, exiles of, 199.

Le Moyne, _Varia Sacra_, 389.

Leopardi, Italian poet, 15.

Lerminier, _De l’ influence, &c._ 447.

Leslie, C. Method with Deists, 467.

Lessing, works, 238, 426; authorship of _his Education of the World_, 87.

_Libre pensée_, pref. v.; 416.

Limborch, _Amica Collatio_, 386, 392.

Lime Street Lecture, 466.

Lindsay, lord, _Scepticism a retrogression_, pref. xvi.

Lippman, Rabbin, 385.

Literature in France, new tone of in eighteenth century, 166; Fleury’s opinion of, 169.

Lobeck on Mythology, 450.

Locke, 125, 148; Webb on, 167.

Logic, Metaphysics, &c. distinguished, 77; method of, taught by physical science, 98.

Logical and chronological priority distinguished, 372.

Λόγος of Philo, 332.

Lombard, Peter, 461.

Louis XIV. 166.

Lucian, a sceptic, 43; _Peregr. Prot._, 48 seq. 402, 403; life, 48; Philopatris, 67, 409.

Lucretius, 43.

Lutheran reaction. See _Neo_ and _Hyper Lutheranism_.

Lyall, _Propæd. Prophet._, 152.

Lyons, _Infallibility of Human Judgment_, 135.

Lyttleton, on St. Paul, 209, 368, 467.

Mabillon’s Bernard, 82.

Macaulay, subdivision of history, 379.

Mackay, R. W. works of, 319 seq.

Macmillan’s Magazine on Cowper, &c. 23; on Miracle Plays, 95.

Maerklin, 34.

Magdeburg Centuries, pref. xvii.

Mahábhárata, 383.

Mahomet. 390.

Mahometans, controversy with, 12, 387, 390.

Maimonides, 107.

Maine de Biran, Eclectic philosopher, 394, 447.

Mandeville, 135.

Mansel, Bampton Lect. 470; on Kant, 229; on Fichte, 433.

Maracci, Koran, 389.

Marchand’s _Dictionnaire_ de Impostoribus, 412

Maret, 299.

Marheinecke, Hegelian theologian, 265.

Marmontel, 178.

Martineau, J. 321, 338, 392; on Butler, 157.

Martyn, II. pamphlets on Mahometanism, 390.

Masson, Essays, 33.

Materialism defined, 166; in Germany, 438.

Maternus, 456.

Maupertnis, 217.

Maurice’s Boyle Lectures, 330, 381.

M’Caul’s works on Judaism, 387.

M’Cosh, works, 27, 469.

M’Gill on the Chaldee of Daniel, 60.

Mediation school of theology, 241, 279.

Mendelssohn the philosopher, 225.

Metaphysics, 24; tests of truth in, 25 seq.; subdivision of, 394.

Mettrie, La, 177.

Miall, E. _Bases of Belief_, 469.

Michaelis, 220.

Michael Scot, 90.

Micrælios, 386.

Middleton, Conyers, 423.

Migne, _Livres Sacrés_, 383; _Démonstrations Evangeliques_, 464.

Mill, Dr. on Strauss, 273.

Mill, J. S. on variation of terms, 11; on laws, 32, 311, 380; on utility, 27; on society, 32; on Bentham and Coleridge, 309.

Miller’s Bampton Lectures, 366, 468.

Mills, various readings, 132.

Milman on Gibbon, 196.

Milton, compared with Pope and Tennyson, 22.

Minucius Felix, apology, 44, 457.

Miracle Plays, 95.

Miracles, Hume on, 151 seq.; how distinguished from wonder, 152; Trench’s classification of attacks on, 154.

Miscreant, name explained, 44.

Missions in Germany, 285.

Modern English theology, tendencies in, 329 seq.

Moehter, 240, 250.

Monnaie, de La, 412.

Montaigne, 167.

Montesquieu, 168.

Montgéron on the miracles of Abbé Paris, 150.

Moral causes of doubt. See _Cause_.

Moral sense, 364, 369.

Moravians, 161, 285.

Morell’s works on tests of truth, 19, 22, 25; on inspiration, 29.

Morgan’s works, 140 seq.

Morinus on Hebrew vowel points, 113.

Mornæus, _De Ver._ 386, 403.

Mosheim on _Everlasting Gospel_, 86.

Moyer, lady, lecture on Arianism, 466.

Müller, Julius, 250.

Müller, Max, on myths, 270, 450; on Sanskrit 383.

Müller, Ottfried, on mythology, 450.

Mundt, 276.

Mysticism, instances of, 20, 30.

Myth, distinguished from parable and legend, 233, 269, 270.

Mythology, Grote on, 5; altered opinion on in present century, 320, 450.

Names proper, in Hebrew, 255, 431.

National Review on Ecclesiastes, 5; on Swedenborg, 30; on Gibbon, 196; on Shelley, 204; on Strauss, 273; on J. H. Newman, 310; on the working classes, 313; on Theodore Parker, 324; on the Acts, 367.

Natural history of doubt, peculiarity of inquiry, 346, 347.

Naturalism, term explained, 415; compared with positivism, 339.

Neander, Lect. II. _passim_; life and views. 250, 251, 364; opposed prohibition of Strauss’s book, 272.

Neo-Lutheranism, 283.

Neo-Platonism, explained, 46; works on, 399; teachers of, 399; in English theology 332.

Nettement’s works on French literary history, 290, 446.

New Testament, questions on, 367.

Newman, F. 17, 34; works, 323, 326 seq; _Phases_ 327; _Hebr. Mon._ 327.

Nicholai, 219, 224.

Nicholas, Michel, 254, 430, 448.

Niedner’s Zeitschrift, on Reimarus, 426.

Nitzch, 250.

Nizzachon, the two, 385.

Nominalism, 9, 81.

North British Review, on Alexandrian school, 221; on socialism, 276, 292, 294; on German theology, 284; on Comte, 205; on Galileo, 350; on S. Hennell, 323; on Vedas, 383; on Socinianism, 392; on Vinet, 444; on apologetic literature, 464.

Norton on Gospels, 40.

Novalis, 239.

Novel, modern, tendency of, 318.

Oberlin, 243.

Ochino, a unitarian, 99.

Ogilvie, Dr. on doubt, 13.

Olshausen, H. 250.

Ontology explained, 25.

_Oracles of Reason_ of Blount, 124.

Oracles on Christianity, 57.

Orcagna, Averroes in his fresco, 90.

Origen against Celsus, 50, 51, 404, 457; comparison of with Schleiermacher, 285, 460.

Osiander, comparison of his views with Schleiermacher’s, 247.

Oxford movement in church, 424. See _Reaction_.

Owen, R. 201 seq. 307.

Owen, R. D. 202.

Padua, university of, philosophy at, 100.

Paine. T. 149 seq.

Painting, early Italian schools of, 96.

Paley, 466.

Panizzi on Romantic Epic, 94.

Pantheism at Padua, 100; two kinds of, 101, 109; name explained, 414.

Paolo Giovio, 96.

Para du Phanjas, 464.

Parable, distinguished from myth, 269.

Paris, àbbé, miracles of, 150.

Parker, Theodore, life and writings of, 323, 324.

Pascal, 470.

Patriotism in Germany, 240.

Paulus, German theologian, 232 seq.

Pearson on infidelity, 13, 311.

Pecock, Reginald, 98.

Pentateuch controversy, 254 seq.

Peregrinus Proteus of Lucian, 49 seq. 402.

Persecution, cause of, 404 seq.

Pestalozzi, 383.

Peter, St. joke on in Romantic Epic, 94.

Petrarch on Evidences, 462.

Pfaff, 419.

Phases of Faith, of F. W. Newman, 327.

Philippsohn on Judaism, 387.

Philopatris of Pseudo-Lucian, 67, 409.

Philosophy, scholastic, 78 seq.; German, 235 seq. 438.

Philostratus’s Life of Apollouius, 63 seq.

Physics, difficulties derived from, 350; teaches logical method, 98.

Physiology, modern discoveries in. 355; mode of approaching psychology through, 438.

Piers Plowman, the poem, on contemporary scepticism, 90.

Pietism, 213, 424.

Planck, A. on Lucian, 50, 402.

Planck’s Sacred Philology, 221.

Plato on Sophists, 42; doctrines on religion, 45; Platonic dialectic, 78; Platonic party at Cambridge in the seventeenth century, 124, 392.

Plurality of worlds, 201.

Poetry in Germany, schools of, 425.

Pomponatius, 101.

Pope, compared with Milton and Tennyson, 22; influence of Bolingbroke on, 145.

Porphyry, life and character, 56 seq. 71; references for studying, 56; view of oracles, 57; work against Christians, 57 seq.; attack on Daniel, 60 seq.; other views of, 61, 62; on predication, 57; letter to Marcella, 71.

Port Royal, miracle of the thorn, 153.

Positivism, described, 296; in England, 311; religion of, 312; compared with Naturalism, 339.

Pouilly, critic on Roman history, 144.

Powell, Baden, on Deluge, 17.

Prayer, extract from Guizot on, 395.

Prejudices of heathens against Christianity, 405.

Presentative consciousness, 394.

Press, freedom of in England, 123.

Pressensé, pref. xix., 42, 356, 404, 448, 449, 451, 453.

Priestly, 392.

Printsterer, Groen van, 445.

Progress in religion, 87.

Protestant church in France, freethought in, 304, 448.

Protestantism distinguished from scepticism, pref. vi.; 9, 99.

Providence, Holyoake on, 313.

Psalms: the seventy-third named, 5, 19; the division of into books, 256.

Pseudo-Clementines, 400.

Pseudo-Lucian, Philopatris, 409.

Psychology explained, 24; Morrell on, 395.

_Pugio Fidei_, 385.

Pulci, 95.

Pusey on German theology, pref. xxi.; on inspiration, 475.

Quakers, 29.

Quarterly Review, on Leopardi, 16; on Romantic Epic, 94; on Theophilanthropists, 190; on Fourier, 292.

Quinet, E. on comparison of religions, 5, 381; on Strauss, 273.

Racovian Catechism, 391.

Rámayana, 382.

Rambouillet, 178.

Ramus, P. 102.

Rationalism in Germany, 11, 231, 234; subdivided, 218, 417; compared with Deism, 321; explained, 416 seq.; literary dispute on, 418; in English church, 329, 340.

Ratisbon, confession of, 212.

Ray, 466.

Raymond, Martin, 386.

Raynal, 178.

Reaction among heathens, 44; Catholic in France, 300, 448; in Italy, 103; in Oxford, 285, 310.

Readings, variety of in sacred texts, 182.

Realism explained, 9, 79 seq.

Rees, translation of Racovian Catechism, 391.

Reformation, twofold element in, 211; not sceptical, 9, 99: pref. vi.; 211; in Italy, 99.

Reformed Jews, 387.

Reimannus, 7.

Reimarus, 225, 426.

Reinhardt, 231.

Reinhold, 228.

Religion, comparative study of, 4, 380; Greek, 5; eastern, 4.

Remonstrants in Dutch church, 110, 445.

Renaissance, 92 seq.; literature at, 96; unchristian sympathy at, 96; evidences at, 462.

Renan, E. 5, 31, 302 seq.; 397; Averroes, 89; Lect. III. _passim_.

Rénand, 299.

Repressor. See _Pecock_.

Responsibility for belief, 18.

Reuss, 448.

Reville, 446, 448.

Revolution, French, 188; profanity of, 189.

Revue des Deux Mondes; Taillandier on Abélard, 81; Saisset on Spinoza, 106; Remusat on Herbert, 119; Girardin on Rousseau’s _Emile_, 188; Scherer on Hegel, 266, 398; Reville on Parker, 324; on Comte, 296; Moleschott, 438; Young Hegelians, 438; Reville on Holland, 446; Renan on metaphysics, 303.

Revue Germanique, on Lessing, 224; on Gospels, 267.

Richardi _Confutatio_, 388.

Riddle’s Bampton Lectures, pref. xv.; 468.

Rigg, J. H. Anglican theology, 330.

Riggenbach, 445.

Robespierre, 190.

Robins, S. pref. xvi.

Rogers, H. 374, 469.

Röhr, 234.

Romaine, 160.

Roman catholic theology in Germany, 442.

Romantic Epic, 94 seq.; school in Germany, 239, 291.

Roscelin on Trinity, 80.

Rose, H. J. on German theology, pref. xxi.

Rosenmüller, 220.

Rothe, German theologian, 279, 281, 436.

Rousseau, sources for study of, 183; life, 183; works, 184 seq.; _Contral social_, 184; Emile, 185; _Confessions_, 187; compared with Voltaire, 188.

Ruge, 275.

Saintes-Amand, pref. xxiv.

Saisset, E. on Spinoza. 108.

Salomo Zebi. 386.

Salvador, 299, 387.

Sanskrit literature, 382.

Saumur, school of, 212.

Saussure, Ch. de la, 446.

Scepticism explained, 418 seq.; kinds of, 419.

Schelling, 27, 46, 238, 433.

Scherer, 31, 397, 448, 474.

Schlegel, F. 239.

Schleiermacher, 242 seq.; critical works of, 248; translates Plato, 242; theological works of, 244, 428 seq.; Glaubenslehre, 245; his studies, 428; compared with Origen and H. St. Victor, 244; and with Plato, 427.

Schmidt, G. 276.

Schneckenbürger, 436.

Scholastic, philosophy, 77 seq.; origin of name, 77; divisions of, 81; value of scholastic theology, 462.

Scholtens J. H. professor at Leyden, 446.

Schools of German poetry, 425.

Schopenhauer, 438.

Schramm, _Anal. Patr._ 41, 454.

Schrockh, pref. xvii.

Scholtens, 446.

Schulze, 228.

Schwarz, C. _Gesch._ pref. xxv.

Schwegler, 436.

Schweizer, 439, 444.

Science, anticipations of the future condition of, 354 seq.

_Science in theology_, 385.

Scriptures, doubts of, 361.

Sebonde on natural religion, 104, 462.

Secker, Abp. relieves Annet, 144; subscribes to Voltaire, 171.

Secularism, explained, 312, 313.

Semler, works and system, 218 seq.

Sensation, as a test of truth, 25.

Sensationalisim, meaning of, 25.

Servetus, 99.

Severus, Sept. 63.

Shaftesbury, Lord, 130 seq.

Shelley, 16; 203 seq.; works, 206.

Sherlock, 467.

_Sic et Non_, 82.

Silence of heathens on Christianity, 402 seq.

Simeon of Cambridge, 160.

Simon, Jules, 471.

Simon, Richard, 83, 168.

Sirven, 170.

Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, on Ecclesiastes, 5; Canon, 58; Genesis, 257; Daniel, 408; Jehovah, 480.

Socialism, English, 201; French, 292; in 1848, 294; compared with English, 294.

Socinianism, 12, 99, 391.

Socrates, 84, 351.

Σοφία, of Aristotle, 78.

Sophists of Greece, 351.

Sources of information for the attacks of heathens, 41.

Sources for lectures, pref.

Spener, the Pietist, 213, 424.

Spinoza, 60; sources of information on, 106; philosophy of, 107; _Theologicus Politicus_, 110; effects of 113.

Stahl, 283.

Stanhope’s Boyle Lectures, 386.

Statistics, difficulties from, 314.

Stattler, 464.

Stephen, list of writers on inspiration, 474.

Sterling, 34.

Stilling, Jung, 243, 285.

Stillingfleet, 466.

Stirner, 276.

St. Lambert. See _Lambert_.

Stoics, religious opinions of, 45.

Storr, 231.

Strauss, 34; on Julian, 66; life and writings, 267, 434; life of Christ, 266, 271; Christology, 269, 433; view of Christ’s ideal, 356; replies to, 273, 435; effects of, 272 seq.; view of his own work, 273; on Reimarus, 427.

St. Simon, life and sect, 293, 294.

Subjective character of modern unbelief, 308.

Συγκατάβασις, 222.

Suetonius on Christianity, 401.

Supernatural, tendency of labour to depress the sense of, 314

Swedenborg, 29.

Swift, on Woolston, 137.

Switzerland, modern theology of, 444.

Symmachus, 69.

Tacitus on Christianity, 401.

Taillandier on Abélard, 81, 83.

Taine on Livy, 302, 379.

Tatian, 48, 456.

Taylor, A. on Latitudinarians, 128.

Taylor, I. 469.

Technical. See _Terms_.

Telesius, 102.

Templars, unbelief of, 89.

Tendencies, religious, among ancient heathens, 40 seq.

Tennyson, compared with Pope and Milton, 23; quoted, 260.

Terms, technical, 413; literature of, 419.

Tertullian’s Apology, 457.

Tests of truth, effects of various theories of, 25-30.

Thaer, author of Lessing’s _Education of the World_, 87.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 221.

Theodosius II. destroyer of heathen works against Christianity, 41.

Theologians, German; classification of, 440 seq. See _Modern English_.

Theophilanthropists, 190.

Theophilus, apologist, 457.

Tholuck, 249; on evidences, 464: pref. xxiii.; on inspiration, 473; attack on Butler’s Analogy, 157.

Thomson’s, Bp. Bampton Lectures, 368, 385, 469. See _Atonement_.

Tillemont, pref. xvii.

Tindal, M. works, 139 seq.; suggestive of Butler’s Analogy, 157.

Toland, works, 127 seq.

Toldos Jeschu, 385.

Toleration, works on, and principle of, 118, 406.

Treason, charge of against early Christians, 406.

Trench’s Calderon, 95.

Truth, see _Tests_.

Tübingen school, 209, 274, 277, 367; university of, 219.

Tullocks Inaugural Address, 339; Burnett prize, 469.

Turpin, Abp. joke on in Romantic Epic, 95.

Twelfth century, great minds in, 86.

Twesten, 250.

Tzehirner’s _Essay_, 400; _Apologetik_, pref. xix.

Ullmann, 250.

Unbelief, see _Cause_, _Subjective_.

Uniformities of Causation and Co-existence, 79.

Unigenitus Bull, 165.

Union of German churches, 282.

Unitarianism, history of, and works on, 392 seq.

Universities, German, 219, 223; that of Paris attacked for Pantheism, 299.

Utility of the inquiry into doubt, pref. xii, 342 seq.

Van den Ende, 106.

Vanim, 103

Van Mildert, pref. vi, xv.; on moral causes of doubt, 13, 345.

Vaughan, R. A. on mystics, 30; essays, 59.

Vedas, 382.

Vendidad Sade, 381.

Vilmar, classification of German poetry, 425.

Vinet, 444, 448.

Vituperation in books of evidence of seventeenth century, 465.

Volney, _Les Ruines_, 191 seq.; 290.

Voltaire, on Woolston, 137; life of, 170; character of, 171 seq.; Carlyle on, 171; theological works of, 174; opinions of, 175; ridicule, 172.

Vowel points in Hebrew, controversy on, 113.

Wagenseil, _Tela Ignea Satanœ_, 385.

Walch, 419, 460.

Walton’s Polyglott, various readings in, 132.

Warburton, Divine Legation, 466, 467.

Waterland, reply to Tindal, 188, 464.

Watson, Bp. 198, 464.

Webb on Locke, 168.

Wegscheider, 234.

Weimar, court of, 228.

Welcker on mythology, 450.

Werenfels, tests for miracles, 153.

Wesley, 161, 392.

Westcott on canon, 53; on Daniel, 408; on Inspiration, 472.

Westminster Review: on Job, 5; Heine, 16; Rousseau, 183; German theology, 8; Byron and Shelley, 208; Owen, 202; Weimar, 228; Vedas, 383; Bentham, 309; Positivism, 312; Carlyle, 315; Emerson, 317; S. Hennell, 323; Parker and Strauss, 324; F. Newman, 327; Socialism, 438; Taine, 302; Schopenbauer, 432.

Whately’s Rhetoric, 14.

Whewell, 28, 79, 369.

White, Blanco, 34.

Whitfield, 160.

Wichern’s Inner Mission, 285.

Will distinct from Emotion, 394.

Wiseman, Cardinal, Lectures, 469.

Wolfenbüttel Fragments, 225, 426 seq.

Wolf, J. A. on Homer, 253.

Wolff’s Bibliotheca Hebraica, 386.

Wollf, philosophy of, 214 seq.; life of, 215, 216; sources for studying, 215; effects of, 216.

Woodham, 78, 454.

Woolstencraft, 200.

Woolston, 136 seq. 420.

Wordsworth quoted, 115; 309.

Wulferus, 386.

Xavier, Hieronimo, a writer against the Mahometans, 296.

Yaçna, 387.

Young’s _Christ of History_, 469.

Zeitstimmen, &c., 436.

Zeller, 436, 444.

Zend Literature, 381.

Zeno of Elea, 84.

Zinzendorf, 101.

Zoroaster, 381.

Zurich, university of, 444.

FOOTNOTES

1 Pref. pp. v.-ix.

2 Id. pp. x, xi.

3 Id. pp. xii, xiii.

4 Id. p. xiv.

5 Lect. I.: and Lect. VIII. p. 340 seq.

6 E.g., in the French expression _la libre pensée_.

7 In Note, p. 413.

8 In 1713.

9 Many of the modern French protestant critics so employ it; e.g. A. Reville, _Rev. des Deux Mondes_, Parker, Oct. 1861.

10 Cfr. pp. 9 and 99.

11 Cfr. p. 12, and Notes 4, 5, and 6, at the end of this volume.

12 Boyle Lectures (1802-4). See note, p. 345.

13 Bacon’s Nov. Org. lib. i. Aph. 104.

14 Cfr. pp. 14-20.

15 Pp. 32-34. Pp. 22, 24, 25.

16 Pp. 24-31.

17 Cfr. p. 346.

18 See especially Lect. VIII. p. 357 seq.

19 Some valuable remarks on the proper balance of the mind in study are contained in a sermon, _The Nemesis of Excess_, recently preached at Oxford, by Bp. Jackson.

20 pp. 35-37.

21 Cfr. pp. 31 note, 342; and Note 9. pp. 396-8.

_ 22 The Natural History of Infidelity and Superstition in Contrast with Christian Faith._

23 A work partly on the history of unbelief, _Scepticism a Retrogressive Move in Theology and Philosophy_, has also been lately written (1861) by the accomplished lord Lindsay. Great learning is shown in it. Though written with a special controversial purpose, and though the facts accordingly are briefly stated, without literary references, it contains a useful summary and suggestive reflections.

24 In a literary point of view it is incorrect, in one chapter, if the author understands Mr. Robins rightly, where he seems to classify together, under the same head of Pantheism, the atheism of the French school of the Encyclopædists in the last century and that of the German philosophers of the present. The two indeed agree in denying or ignoring the existence of a personal God; but in tone, premises, and metaphysical relations, they differ diametrically. (Since this note was written, the sad intelligence of Mr. Robins’s death has appeared.)

_ 25 Christliche Kirchengeschichte_, &c. 45 vols. 1768-1812. The writer of these lectures has taken occasion elsewhere (p. 466.) to deplore the want of any complete history of the English church. He may here add also the want of a history in English of European Christianity since the Reformation.

26 It may offer an explanation of subsequent references to some church historians, to name the classification given by Schaff (_Bibliotheca Sacra_, 1850). After treating of the ancient and mediæval histories, and making the obvious subdivision of the modern into Romish and Protestant, and subdividing these again according to their nations, he arranges the Protestant historians of Germany chronologically under five classes: (1) the Polemico-orthodox, such as the Magdeburg centuriators; (2) the Pietistic,—Arnold and Weismann; (3) the Pragmatico-super-natural,—Mosheim, Walch, Planck, Schröckh; (4) the Rationalist,—Semler, Henke, Gieseler (in reference to which latter he is perhaps hardly fair); (5) the Scientific, viz. (α) of the Schleiermacher school,—Neander; (β) of the Hegelian, unchurchlike and heterodox,—Baur; (γ) of the Hegelian, churchlike and orthodox,—Dorner. Concerning older church historians, see the late Rev. J. G. Dowling’s excellent work, _Introduction to the Critical Study of Ecclesiastical History_, 1838; and, on the most modern German church historians, see _North British Review_, Nov. 1858.

27 Lect. III. pp. 100-103.

_ 28 Geschichte des Englischen Deismus._ 1841.

_ 29 J. Leland’s View of the Deistical Writers_, 1754. An edition published in 1837 contains an account of the subsequent history of Deism by Cyrus R. Edmonds. It is edited by Dr. W. L. Brown.

30 Lecture II.

31 An older work, in some respects similar to Pressensé’s, is Tzchirner’s _Geschichte der Apologetik_, 1805.

32 Lecture III.

33 See p. 82, note.

34 P. 76, note.

35 Lecture IV.

36 The able French critic C. Remusat has bestowed attention on some of the English deists. A paper on Shaftesbury has appeared since Lecture IV. was printed, in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Nov. 1862.

37 In Lecture V.

38 Edited by Vater.

39 See p. 177, note.

40 See p. 164, note.

41 Lectures VI. and VII.

42 Lecture VI. p. 213.

43 Some of these works were subsequent to the discussion caused abroad by the sermons of Mr. Rose, described below.

44 Afterwards Principal of the King’s College, London.

_ 45 Historical Inquiry into the Probable Causes of the Rationalist Character lately predominant in the Theology of Germany._

46 1829.

_ 47 Historical Inquiry_, &c. part ii. 1830.

48 P. 241.

49 Dr. S. Lee, of Cambridge, also appended a dissertation on some points of German Rationalism to his _Six Sermons on Prophecy_, 1830.

50 In the Appendix to the second edition of the _State of Protestantism in Germany_, 1829.

51 A brief sketch of Tholuck’s views it given in the _Foreign Quarterly Review_, vol. 25.

_ 52 Der Deutsche Protestantismus, seine Vergangenheit and seine heutigen Lebensfragen in zusammenhang der gesammten rationalentwickelung beleuchlet von einem Deutschen._ A very instructive article was written in the _British Quarterly Review_, No. 26, May 1851, founded chiefly on this work.

53 Kahnis, _Internal History of German Protestantism_ (E. T.), p. 169, note.

54 An English clergyman, Mr. E. H. Dewar, wrote a small work in 1844, on _German Protestantism_; based chiefly on Amand Saintes, but in tone like that of Mr. Rose. It was considered very unfair, and was answered by Neander in the _Jahrbücher fur Wissenschaftliche Kritik_, October 1844; and when Mr. Dewar replied, was again answered by him in _Antwortschreiben_, 1845. It may be proper to name here, that Mr. B. Hawkins’s work, _Germany, Spirit of her History_, &c. 1838, contains miscellaneous information on many points of German life, which illustrate this portion of the history.

55 P. 279. Neander has also written a work, _Geschichte des Verflossenen halb-Jahrhunderts_. (_Deutsche Zeitschrift_, 1850.)

56 He belongs to a new form of the historico-critical school; See Note 41, p. 438; but writes without prejudice. An article elsewhere referred to (p. 7) in the _Westminster Review_, may convey an idea of the facts of Schwarz’s work; but it expresses a more definite tendency and opinions than his work.

57 Lect. VII. p. 289 seq.

58 P. 290, note.

59 Id.

60 Lect. VIII.

61 As the relation of the present condition of religions belief in England to forms of philosophy may not have been made perfectly clear even by the remarks in Lect. VIII. p. 330 seq., and Note 9 (p. 396), it may be well here to state the sequence intended, even at the risk of repetition. The father of the modern philosophy is Kant. He first gave the impulse to resolve truth, which was supposed to be objective, into subjective forms of thought. Hence, in succeeding systems of philosophy, the idea was thought to be of more importance than the facts; and an _à priori_ tendency was created. But in the two philosophers, Schelling and Hegel, this developed in different modes. Both sought to approach facts through ideas; to both the ideal world was the real; but with the former, truth was absolute, with the latter, relative. In the former case the mind was thrown in upon itself, and had a secure ground of truth in the eternal truths of the reason; in the latter it was thrown (ultimately, though not immediately) outward, and taught to trace the transition of the ideas in the world, the growth of truth in history. Hence in theology, while the tendency of both was to find an appeal for truth independent of revelation, the one produced an intuitional religion, the other, proximately, an ideal, but ultimately generates scepticism; for the one clings to the eternal ideas in the mind, the other views the fleeting, changing aspects of truth in the world. The spirit of the former is seen in Carlyle, Coleridge, and Cousin; the spirit of the latter in Renan and Scherer, and is beginning to appear in the younger writers of the English periodical literature. Hence in English theology we have two broadly marked divisions; one doctrinal, and the other literary; the former of which subdivides into the two just named.

62 Many references to them are given in Smith’s (American) Translation of Hagenbach’s _Hist. of Doctr._ 1862.

63 In Lect. I. p. 16 (last par.), 35, 36; In Lect. II. p. 66 (last par.); in Lect. III. p. 80 (last half), 81 (first half), 92, 97; 98 (last par.), 99; 102, 104, 105, 108, 111 (part): in Lect. IV. p. 120, 122, 124 (part), 141, 143, 145-147; 148: in Lect. V. p. 181, 182; 184; 196-203; in Lect. VI. p. 210, 237; 250-259 (nearly all): in Lect. VII. p. 281 (part); 291-301: in Lect. VIII. p. 307 (part); 310-339 (for which a brief analysis was substituted); p. 344; 355, 369 (part).

64 His thanks are especially due to Mr. Macray, the Librarian of the Taylor Institution, for his kindness in the last respect.

65 Pp. 38, 378.

66 The attitude of the mind towards the national mythology in successive ages of Greek history has been treated by Grote, _History of Greece_, vol I. ch. 16.

67 See Quinet’s _Œuvres_, t. i. c. 5, and especially § 4. On the doubts expressed in the books of Job and Ecclesiastes respectively, see the article _Job_ by Hengstenberg in Kitto’s _Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature_, (reprinted in a volume of Hengstenberg’s miscellaneous works), and the article _Ecclesiastes_ by Mr. Plumptre in Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_. For the free-thinking inquiry into the two books, see the article on Job in the _Westminster Review_, October 1853, founded mainly on Hirzel; and that on Ecclesiastes in the _National Review_, No. 27, for January 1862, founded chiefly on Hitzig. E. Renan, in his work on Job, and others, have studied the doubts expressed in it as an internal evidence for its date. Very full information in reference to both books may be found in Dr. S. Davidson’s _Introd. to the Old Testament_ (1862), vol. ii. p. 174 seq., 352 seq. It is deeply interesting to observe, not merely that the difficulties concerning Providence felt by Job refer to the very subjects which painfully perplex the modern mind, but also that the friends of Job exhibit the instinctive tendency which is observed in modern times to denounce his doubt as sin, not less than to attribute his trials to evil as the direct cause. These two books of Scripture, together with the seventy-third Psalm, have an increasing religious importance as the world grows older. “The things written aforetime were written for our learning.”

68 Attention, for example, should be directed to the efforts of the mind in emancipating itself (1) from particular forms of political government, or social arrangements, or artificial laws, in the struggle against the feudal system, and in the development of political liberty in modern times, or (2) from traditional systems of scientific teaching, as the Ptolemaic theory of astronomy, or the Cartesian of vortices. The absence too of such attempts in the stagnation of Eastern life is an instructive negative instance for study.

69 It is proper to express my obligations for a few hints in this part of the lecture to an able historic sketch of modern German thought, based on the _Geschichte der neuesten Theologie_ of C. Schwartz, in the Westminster Review, April 1857 (especially p. 333), The enumeration of the epochs which follows nevertheless occurred to me for the most part independently of those suggestions, and had been previously expressed in public. A classification of a different kind will be found in _Reimannus Historia Atheismi_, 1725, p. 315.

70 The author (supposed to be Hundeshagen) of _Der Deutsche Protestantismus_ thus expresses himself (§ 6.): “In the history of the world there are four successive periods in which open unbelief and unconcealed enmity to Christianity made the tour in some degree among the chief nations of Europe. Italy made the beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth century; England and France followed in the seventeenth and eighteenth; the series closed in Germany in the nineteenth.” The first of the four crises in our text occurred in the ancient world; the second is mediæval; the third, at the moment of transition into the modern history, is the Italian crisis of the quotation just cited; the three others therein named make up the fourth in our enumeration.

71 On the office of language, and the changes to which it is liable, consult the chapter on the “Natural History of the variations in the meaning of terms,” in J. S. Mill’s _Logic_ (vol. ii. b. 4. ch. 5.). An explanation of many of the terms which occur in the history of doubt, viz., Deism, Rationalism, &c. will be found in Note 21. at the end of these Lectures.

72 “Empirical,” as in Lessing and Paulus; “Spiritual,” as in the later schools. See Lect. VI. and VII.

73 A brief view of the history of the Christian evidences will be found in Note 49 appended to these Lectures.

74 Viz. toward the close of Lect. VIII.

75 The moral causes of unbelief have been frequently discussed, but the intellectual rarely. Van Mildert has collected, in his _Boyle Lectures_ (note to Lect. XXIV.), references to many valuable authors where the moral sins of pride and impiety are discussed; and J. A. Fabricius (_Delect. Argument._ 1725.) has devoted a chapter to the literature of the subject (c. 36. p. 653.) Dr. Ogilvie wrote in 1783 a separate work on the causes of the recent unbelief; but the causes alleged by him, though well treated in the details, are superficial. A satisfactory discussion of this and cognate topics connected with unbelief is given in a popular but instructive book, _Infidelity, its aspects, causes, and agencies_, a Prize Essay (1853) of the Evangelical Alliance, by the Rev. T. Pearson, Eyemouth, N. B.

76 Compare some remarks on this point in Whately’s _Rhetoric_ (part 2. ch. I. § 2.)

77 Proof being of two kinds, viz. _antecedent probability_, εἰκός, (Arist. Rhet. i. 2. § 15) which shows the _cause_; and _evidence_, σημεῖον, which shows the _fact_; it is clear that the latter, if of the positive kind, τεκμήριον, is demonstrative; but if merely of the probable kind, or of the nature of circumstantial evidence, ἀνώνυμον σημεῖον, requires the antecedent probability in addition for the purpose of effecting conviction. Otherwise the evidence may seem to be an accidental concatenation of circumstances, unless explained by the antecedent probability that existed for the occurrence of the main fact which the accumulation of circumstances is adduced to attest.

78 See below, the commencement of Lect. V.; and on the influence of social disaffection in causing modern unbelief, see Pearson’s _Infidelity_, part 2. ch. 3. p. 373 seq.

79 Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837), a native of the trans-Apennine Roman states. His works were published (1845-49), consisting of philological pieces, poems, papers on philosophy, and letters. The Italians consider him to have been a prodigy in philological power that might have rivalled Niebuhr. As a poet he was one of the finest of his country in the present century. His letters are very classical in expression, and have been said to rival the correspondence of the best ages of Italy. His fine mind was darkened with the deepest shades of doubt. Shelley is the nearest English representative. A masterly sketch of his mental and literary character was given in the _Quarterly Review_ (No. 172. March 1850), generally supposed to be from the pen of an English statesman well known for his knowledge of the Italian literature and his sympathy with constitutional government.

80 Carlo Bini (1806-1842), a native of Tuscany of less note, who belonged to the Republican party in politics, and like Leopardi burned with an unquenchable love of _la patria_. A monument with an inscription by his friend Mazzini has been recently erected over his grave at Livorno. The tender pathos shown in his poetry has been compared to that of Jean Paul. One of his poems, _L’Anniversario della Nascita_ 1833, expressive of deep and afflicting scepticism and life-weariness, will be found in the Collection of Italian Poetry edited by Arrivabene (1 vol. 12mo. 1855.)

81 Shelley’s mental character is discussed near the close of Lect. V.

82 Heinrich Heine (1799-1856), a poet who betook himself to Paris, about 1830, in disgust with the political state of Germany. His poetry was chiefly subsequent to this event. He had a mixture of German imagination with French esprit. In tone he has been compared to Byron. Vapéreau (_Diction. des Contemp._) compares his wit to that of Swift or Rabelais. His collected works have been published at Philadelphia; and his poems were translated into English by E. A. Bowring, 1861. In later life Heine laid aside the extreme unbelief of his earlier years. An article respecting him appeared in the _Westminster Review_ (Jan. 1856.)

83 A brief statement of the difficulties raised on this point is given by Professor Baden Powell in the article _Deluge_ in Kitto’s Cyclopædia (first edition).

84 These discrepancies formed part of the subject of an early work of De Wette (ueber die glaubwuerdigkeit der buccher der Chronik 1806), and are noticed in his _Einleitung ins Alt. Test._ (See the chapters which refer to these books); also in Dr. S. Davidson’s _Introduction to the Old Testament_ 1862, vol. ii. _Chronicles_ § 6 and 8. Mr. F. Newman, in his work, _The Hebrew Monarchy_, has made great use of these difficulties for destructive criticism. Movers (_Untersuchungen ueber die Chronik_ 1834), and C. F. Keil (_Apologetischer Versuch ueber die Chronik_ 1833), endeavour to remove them. Also see the translation of the Commentary of Keil and Bertheau on Kings and Chronicles, the former of the two being based on the work of the same author previously named.

85 J. A. Bengel (1689-1752), author of the _Gnomon of the New Testament_ (translated, with Life prefixed to vol. iv.) Cfr. also the article by Hartmann in Herzog’s _Real. Encyclopædie_ and Burt’s _Life_ of him (translated 1837.) The labour of his life, to fix the text of the New Testament, was prompted by the alarm which his pious mind felt at the uncertainty thrown on the sacred books, the inspiration of which he believed to extend to the words.

86 The denial of responsibility for belief may either be a denial of all responsibility whatever, in consequence of the opinion that our characters are formed for us by circumstances, or else a denial of our responsibility for our belief, as distinct from our responsibility for the agreement of our conduct with our belief; the moral responsibility, according to this view, lying in our adherence to a standard, irrespective of the truthfulness of the standard. The former of these views is the fatalism advocated in the system called (English) Socialism (See Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, i. 472 seq.); the latter has occasionally been imputed to teachers of the utilitarian school of Ethics, perhaps with less justice; their assertions in reference to it being intended to apply only to political and not to moral responsibility.

87 Such an attitude of mind, for example, was presented in the seventeenth century by Huet, and in the present by De Maistre. On the former, see Bartholmess’ _Le Scepticisme Theologique_ (1852); for reference to sources for the study of the latter, see Lect. VII. Consult Morell’s _History of Philosophy_ (vol. ii. ch. 6. § 2) for the history of this kind of philosophical scepticism.

88 Psalm lxxiii. 15-17.

89 See pp. 7, 12.

90 See pp. 8-12.

91 The names “lower” and “higher” for the two respective branches into which literary criticism is divisible, are commonly used in all modern German works of criticism.

92 See previous footnote.

93 The work which will most clearly explain my purpose in the following history is Mr. J. D. Morell’s _Historical and Critical View of the Speculative Philosophy of Europe in the nineteenth century_. (1847.) It exhibits the influence of metaphysical philosophy on various branches of knowledge. (See sect 1 and 5 of the introduction to vol. i., and in vol. ii. ch. 9.) Also in his _Lectures on the Philosophical Tendencies of the Age_ (1848), he treats the same subject with direct reference to religion. Compare also on the same points Cousin’s _Histoire de la Philosophie du 8__e__ siècle_, vol. ii. leçon 30; Pearson on _Infidelity_, part ii. ch. 2. p. 340 seq.

94 Tennyson’s _In Memoriam_, § 94.

95 An instructive comparison of Milton, Cowper, and Wordsworth, which will further illustrate this subject, may be found in _Macmillan’s Magazine_ for Jan. 1862.

96 See p. 21.

97 The cause is, that whatever difficulties may be presented by it are the statements of rival teaching opposed to the Christian; conclusions, not premises; whereas those which arise from the psychological branch are rival premises; not difference of belief merely, but causes of such difference. Therefore the difficulties suggested by Ontology belong to those described above in p. 21, 22. Many illustrations of this branch may be found in Bartholmess’ _Hist. Crit. des Doctrines Religieuses de la Philosophie Moderne_, 1855.

98 The classification of faculties here intended, with their respective functions, will be illustrated by referring to Morell’s _Hist. of Phil._, vol. ii. p. 338; and his _Philosophy of Religion_, ch. 1. and 2. The altered scheme given in his subsequent works on Psychology (1853 and 1861,) ought also to be compared with the former one. See also Coleridge’s _Aids to Reflection_, i. 168 seq. The terms Sensationalist, Idealist, and Mystic, are nearly always used in the present lectures in the sense in which Morell, following Cousin, uses them; viz. to express those who place the ultimate test of truth in sense, innate ideas, or feeling, respectively.

99 E.g. In the history of the eighteenth century in France. (See Lect. V.) In estimating the effects of philosophical opinions, care must be used, to distinguish the results which may be thought by opponents to flow from such opinions by logical inference, from those which have been proved by history to flow from them in fact. Some portion of Cousin’s brilliant criticism, in the _Hist. de la Phil. Française du_ 18e _siècle_, and in the _Ecole Sensualiste_, is thought to be open to exception on this ground. It is from a conviction of the importance of not attributing to a philosopher that which we merely conceive to be a corollary, though a logical one, from his opinions, that the writer has abstained from introducing here into the text examples of the different views sketched, and has treated the subject in this page broadly and without minuteness. The religious results here stated to appertain to particular metaphysical opinions must accordingly be regarded as logical tendencies, not as necessary effects. The truth of opinions must not be tested merely by supposed consequences, though the practical value of such a test ought to be allowed its due weight.

100 A statement of the steps of proof similar to those described here, by which we ascend to the knowledge of a Deity, is to be found in the Sermons of the late lamented Rev. Shergold Boone (Sermons 2-7; and especially 2 and 3; 1853). Compare also the steps of proof which Rousseau gives in the Confession of the Savoyard Vicar of the _Emile_, analysed in Lect. V.

101 These charges are frequently made indiscriminately against all who hold that expedience is a sufficient explanation of the origin of moral ideas. They were true in a great degree against Utilitarians of the last century, together with some of those in the early years of the present. But when applied at the present time, they only indicate a tendency, not a fact; as may be seen in the delicate manner in which Mr. J. S. Mill has explained the doctrine of Utility, in a series of papers in _Fraser’s Magazine_ for 1861.

102 The first of these two views is seen in Kant, with whom the forms of thought are only regulatively true; the second in Schelling and Cousin. The references for studying Kant’s religious views will be found in a note to Lecture VI.

103 The dangers of such a view arise from those results which have been pointed out in Sir W. Hamilton’s _Dissertations_ (Diss. I. on Cousin). In reference to the office of the intuition in science, Dr. Whewell’s view, in the _Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences_, may be adduced as one which appears to possess the advantage designed by Schelling’s theory, and not be open to those criticisms which have been directed against it. Possibly a true philosophy of the action of the intellectual faculties in reference to religion might be obtained by transferring to it the analysis which Dr. Whewell has given of their action in reference to science. Dr. McCosh, in his work on the _Intentions of the Mind_ (1859), has done much towards effecting it.

104 In Morell’s _Philosophy of Religion_ (c. 5 and 6,) are remarks on the relation of intuition to inspiration, to which attention may be directed, but only in a _psychological_ point of view. Pious minds that believe in miraculous inspiration will rightly hesitate before holding any particular psychological theory of the field of its operation; yet it would seem, if we may hazard a conjecture, that it is the intuitive power of the mind which is mostly the organ to which the divine revelation is unveiled, and on which the inspiring influence acts. It is certain that we cannot understand the _modus operandi_, but we may without irreverence humbly seek to discover the field on which God’s Spirit condescends to operate. In this view inspiration would be analogous to natural genius _psychologically_, but wholly different _theologically_, inasmuch as all who believe in its miraculous character must hold firmly that it is due to a _supernatural_ elevation of this mental power by _immediate_ operation of divine agency, whereas the discoveries of ordinary genius are due to the _unassisted_ and normal condition of the faculty. Morell, in the passage referred to, will probably be thought to be right in the psychological question, and wrong in the theological.

105 The mysticism of the Quakers of the seventeenth century, and of Swedenborg in the eighteenth, is of this character. The excessive self-mortification of the Franciscan order in the middle ages may be set down to the influence, perhaps not consciously analysed, of the same standard used for guidance. On Mysticism, see Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, ii. 332 seq. and 356 seq.; and his _Lectures on the Philosophical Tendencies of the Age_ (Lect. III.); on Swedenborg, see _National Review_ No. 12; and on mystics generally, consult the interesting work of the lamented Rev. R. A. Vaughan, _Hours with the Mystics_, 1856.

106 As in Spinoza, or the school of Schelling.

107 As in Herbert in the seventeenth century, and Theodore Parker in the nineteenth. On the intuitional theology, see McCosh, _Divine Government_, b. iv. ch. 2. § 4. (note.)

108 The above are only a very few instances, of which many will occur hereafter; but they will sufficiently indicate that the French infidelity is mostly connected with the appeal to the first test of truth, sensation; German rationalism, the result of an appeal to an intuitive faculty “transcending consciousness;” English deism, and the earlier forms of German rationalism, the appeal to the ordinary reason, as able to create religion for itself. The separate appeal to feeling has generally, it will be perceived, caused too much belief, instead of too little; mysticism instead of scepticism.

109 This was the view presented in the teaching of Cousin and the Eclectic school of France. Many of the younger thinkers of Europe now consider that the history of philosophy constitutes the whole of philosophy, and is not merely, as here maintained, the preliminary to it. This new view is probably unconsciously derived from Hegel, and is the residuum left by his philosophy. Two able living French critics, Renan and Scherer, have so very clearly expressed this view of the function of philosophy, that it may be well to quote their words (see Note 9); the more so, as this subject will be named again in Lect. VII. Renan has also expressed the same ideas in the Revue des deux Mondes (Jan. 15, 1860), _De la Metaphysique et de son avenir_.

110 It is not from any wish to evade the real question that the writer thus avoids taking a side in the metaphysical dispute. His object is to explain the various effects of metaphysical theories on religious belief; and while considering that the respective evil effects of these systems are a logical corollary from them, as well as an historical result, he is prepared to admit, as previously remarked, that men are sometimes better than their systems, and do not always draw the logical conclusions from their own premises; and therefore he has not thought it right to make these lectures a direct argument on behalf of some favourite metaphysical system, and attack on some rival one. In such case, the history would lose its independent character. While therefore he has never concealed his opinions on the subject of religion, he has thought it more proper not to obtrude, except indirectly, his opinions on that of metaphysics.

111 This is the question at issue between modern Positivists and their opponents. Comte declared the possibility of discovering the fixed laws on which society depends as really as the physical ones of matter. Mr. Mill, in his account of the logic of history (_Logic_, b. vi. c. 4. (6-10)), lays down more maturely the theory of such a process. On the contrary, Mr. Kingsley, in his inaugural lecture at Cambridge, 1861, asserts the very opposite position; and, in his wish to elevate the influence of individual men on the course of events, almost reduces history to a series of biographies.

112 The kind of analysis here alluded to may be illustrated by referring to one of the _Essays_ of Mr. D. Masson, in which he has compared in a very striking manner Shakspeare and Goëthe, by regarding their respective works as reflecting the mental peculiarity of each writer. He considers the meditative melancholy of Shakspeare’s youth, as expressed in his Sonnets, to be the clue to the reflective analysis that in later life could depict the doubts of Hamlet.

113 Christian Maerklin (1807-1849), a fellow student of Strauss at Tübingen, whose views were unsettled, partly by a tone like that of the Renaissance derived from the contrast of classic and Christian culture, and partly by the philosophical speculations of the time. He embraced pantheism and the mythical idea of Christianity. For ten years after 1840 he undertook ministerial work, and then left the church, and till his death in 1849 devoted himself with assiduity to the business of education. A short memoir of him was written by Strauss in 1851, _C. Maerklin, ein Lebens-und-Character-Bild aus der Gegenwart_; a brief review of which is given in the _National Review_, No. 7.

114 Sterling (1806-1844), a clergyman, curate to archdeacon Hare. His works were edited, with a memoir prefixed, by the archdeacon in 1848; and a life written of him by Carlyle (1851.)

115 Blanco White (1775-1841), a Spanish priest, who became a protestant, and a refugee in England. He was much respected in Oxford, and the University gave him a degree. He afterwards turned unitarian, and perhaps at last deist. His life was published in 1845; and his mental character analysed in the _Quarterly Review_ No. 151, and the _Christian Remembrancer_ vol. 10.

116 Mr. F. Newman. See Lect. VIII.

117 See further remarks concerning the purpose of the course of Lectures in Lect. VIII.

118 John xx. 26-29.

119 E.g. Mr. J. J. Conybeare (1824), on the _History and Limits of the Secondary Interpretation of Scripture_; Dr. Burton (1829), _The Heresies of the Apostolic Age_; Dr. Hampden (1832), _The Scholastic Philosophy in relation to Christian Theology_; as well as several works which investigate doctrines historically, such as the Lectures on the Atonement by Dr. Thomson (1853), by Dr. Hessey on the Sabbath (1860).

120 See above, p. 8.

121 By Dr. Burton in 1829, _An Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age._

122 Burton was such a careful student, that he hardly omitted anything on the subject which had been published up to his time. Subsequent investigations have added little material directly for the knowledge of Gnosticism, but much for a better appreciation of those sources from which it sprung. The oriental philosophy, as is shown in note 3 to Lect. I, is much better known; in like manner the Neo-Platonic. The Jewish Cabbala has also been made known by A. Franck (_Memoires sur la Cabbale_). The speculations too of the new Tübingen school, of which Baur’s work on _Gnosis_, 1835, is an example, have been specially directed to the study of the _origines_ of the Christian church and of Gnostic heresy, and however unsatisfactory in results, present much valuable research. Kurtz in his _Kirchengeschichte_ § 48-50, and Hase, _Id._ § 75-82, refer to several other monographs of the same kind. See also the discussion on Gnostic sects in Professor Norton’s _Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels_, vol. ii.

123 Such instances are seen in the Renaissance, in the state of France during the eighteenth century, and in some of the writings of the English deists and German critics, as will be shown in subsequent lectures. A general view is given, in the introduction to Houtteville’s _Le Christianisme prouvé par des faits_, of “the method of the principal authors for and against Christianity from its beginning,” (translated 1739.) Hase also quotes a work of D. Baumgarten-Crusius, De Scriptoribus sæc. II. qui novam relig. impugnarunt, 1845.

124 There are four sources of information in reference to the opinions of the heathens concerning Christianity; viz. (1) the slight notices which occur in heathen literature, on which see note 12; (2) the works written expressly against Christianity, which are sufficiently analysed in the text and foot-notes; (3) the special replies to these attacks, on which see notes 13, 17, 19; (4) the general treatises on evidence in the early fathers, on which see note 49. The recent publication of Pressensé’s work, 2e série, t. 2, where the analysis of the two latter sources is ably executed, renders unnecessary the publication of an analysis of each. Several of them are also analysed in Schramm, _Analysis Patrum_, 1782.

125 It has been recently made a matter of dispute whether Plato’s own description of the teaching of the Sophists is not rendered untrustworthy by these faults. See Grote’s _History of Greece_, vol. viii. ch. 67.

126 These tendencies are discussed so fully and with such great learning by Neander (_Kirchengeschichte_, vol. i. Introduction), and by Pressensé, _Hist. de l’Eglise Chrétienne_, (2e série, t. ii. ch. 1), to whom I am largely indebted, that it is unnecessary to quote the original sources. Neander exhibits an analogous process in the Jewish religion, in sects of the later times of the nation. See also Döllinger’s _Judenthum und Heidenthum_ (translated 1862.)

127 The mental character of Lucretius has been well analysed by Mr. Sellar, in the volume of _Oxford Essays_, 1855.

128 Pressensé (ut sup. 2e série, t. ii. 77 seq.) has ably sketched the character of Lucian. His utter scepticism is seen in the Ζεὺς τραγῳδός (47-49).

129 Instances, with references, may be seen in the introductory chapter in Neander, p. 18 seq.

130 The Greek literature offers the opportunity for studying the whole process. See Grote, i. ch. 16, previously quoted.

131 The character Cæcilius, in the dialogue of Minucius Felix, is made to express this view, (c. 8. and elsewhere.) A useful modern edition of this dialogue is given by H. A. Holden, 1853.

132 This reaction deserves to be made the subject of special study. Pressensé is one of the few writers who have pointed out its importance, (2e série, t. ii. ch. 1.) Also compare the remarks in Benjamin Constant’s posthumous work _Du Polytheisme Romain_, 1833. (t. ii. I. 12, 13, 15.) Kurtz refers on this subject to Tzchirner’s _der Fall des Heidenthum_, i. 404, (1829.); E. Kritzler’s _Helden-zeiten des Christenthum_, vol. i. (1856), and Vogt’s _Neo-Platonismus und Christenthum_ (1836.) Also Cfr. Tzchirner’s _Apologetik_ (1804.) c. 2, parts 2 and 3.

133 The _Meditations_ of M. Aurelius were edited by Gataker (1698.) See concerning them Fabricius, _Biblioth. Græc._ v. 500, (ed. Harles); Donaldson, _Gr. Lat._ ch. 54, § 2; and concerning his opinions, Neander’s _Kirchengesch_. I. 177. Mr. G. Long has recently translated the Meditations into English. The philosophy of the Roman Stoics, of which M. Aurelius is one of the best types, is briefly but excellently treated by Sir A. Grant in the _Oxford Essays_ for 1858. Also consult Ritter’s _History of Philosophy_, vol. iv. b. 12, ch. 3, and Neander’s paper on the relation of Greek Ethics to Christianity in the _Zeitschrift für Christliche Wissenchaft und Christliches Leben_ (1850,) translated in the American _Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1853.

134 Pressensé even suggests (2e. série, t. ii. p. 62) that the ultimate result was almost the nirvana of Budhism. It will be observed, that the view taken in the text concerning the Neo-Platonic philosophy, for which I am largely indebted to Pressensé, is different from that which regards it as monotheism, and which has been made popular by Mr. Kingsley’s novel, _Hypatia_, and by his lectures on _the Schools of Alexandria_ (Lect. 3), 1854.

135 Ritter happily calls this philosophy Neo-Pythagoreanism, as the former was Neo-Platonism.

136 E.g. the Alexander of Pontus, whom Lucian holds up to ridicule. On Apollonius of Tyana, see a subsequent note.

137 Crescens is named in Justin Martyr (_Apolog._ II. 3), who wrote against his attack; Tatian (_Oral. adv. Grac._ c. 3); Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._ iv. 16). The last, on the strength of Tatian, accuses him of causing Justin’s death.

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.