Chapter 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

220 Charles Blount in 1680. See Lect. IV.

221 A.D. 313.

222 A.D. 361-3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

231 B. iv.

232 B. ii.

233 B. iii.

234 B. iii.

235 B. v.

236 B. v. and vii.

237 B. vi.

238 B. x.

239 B. vii. and x.

240 B. viii.

241 B. vi.

242 B. x.

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

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

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

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

247 P. 14-17.

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

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

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

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

252 See Lect. I. p. 7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

265 In his work _Liber Calamitatum_.

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

267 In A.D. 1121.

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

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

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

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

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

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