Chapter 4

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

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

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

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

278 Grote, vol. viii. ch. 68.

279 In his Prologue.

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

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

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

283 In 1229.

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

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

286 Rev. xiv. 6.

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

_ 288 Les Ruines_, c. 24.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_ 298 Inferno_, Canto x; 15, 118.

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

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

301 1400-1625.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

321 Renan, id. (122-8.)

322 Renan, id. (353-67.)

323 He lived about A.D. 200.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

336 See the references given in a former note.

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

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

339 P. 100.

_ 340 Theol. Polit._ c. vi.

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

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

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

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

345 Ch. 1-6.

346 Ch. 7-12.

347 Ch. 13-15.

348 Ch. 1, 2.

349 Ch. 3.

350 Ch. 6.

351 Ch. 8.

352 Ch. 12-14.

_ 353 De Veritate._ See Lect. IV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

360 Wordsworth, _Ecclesiastical Sonnets_, part ii. 47.

361 See above p. 11.

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

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

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

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

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

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