Footnotes (continued 2)

459.

Posthumous Works, i. 287.

460.

Id. i. 292.

461.

Id. ii. sect. 6.

462.

Posthumous Works, ii. 152.

463.

Id. 177, &c.

464.

Id. i. 22.

465.

Another work was published anonymously in 1742, entitled Christianity not founded on Argument, supposed to be written by the younger Dodwell, son of the learned nonjuror. Its aim is to show that Christianity never propagated itself by argument, but that the evidence of it depends upon a personal illumination of each person who believes it. The work was supposed to be a satire on Christianity. If earnest, it marked the truth that emotional causes are intertwined with intellectual in the formation of belief. See Lechler, pp. 411-421; Leland, Lett. xi. The book of Jasher, published in 1751, is a forgery, written probably by some deist (Horne's Introduction, vol. ii. part ii. p. 142. ed. 8).

466.

He was imprisoned in the King's Bench, and kept from starvation by money from the benevolent archbishop Secker. He died in 1768. See Lechler, pp. 313-22; Leland, ch. x.

467.

Bolingbroke (1678-1751). See Schlosser's History of the Eighteenth Century, vol. i. ch. i. § 3 (transl.); Lechler, pp. 396-405; Leland, ch. 22-34.

468.

On Pouilly, see Sir C. Lewis, Inquiry into the Credibility of Roman History, vol. i. ch. i. p. 5, note, Pouilly published in 1722 his Dissertation sur l'Incertitude et l'Histoire des quatre premiers siècles de Rome. (See Mém. de l'Academ. des Inscr., vol. ix.) Beaufort followed out the same line of inquiry in 1738. The two writers are considered to have laid the basis of the modern historical criticism of ancient history.

469.

They are chiefly, A Letter on one of Tillotson's Sermons in vol. iii. of his works; the Essays, in vols. iii. and iv.; viz. Essay 1 on Human Knowledge, (2) on Philosophy, (3) on the rise of Monotheism, (4) on Authority in Religion; and Fragments in vol. v.

470.

Vol. iii. Letter on Tillotson, also Letter to Pouilly.

471.

Vol. v. No. 57, 58.

472.

Cfr. Remusat's Angleterre au 18e Siècle i. 22, for remarks on Bolingbroke's influence on Pope. The following lines of Pope exactly express Bolingbroke's philosophy: “The universal Cause Acts not by partial, but by general laws, And makes what happiness we justly call, Subsist not in the good of one, but all.” (Ep. iv. 35.)

473.

Instances are to be found in Leland, who discusses his opinions at great length. The reader who compares Leland's quotations with Bolingbroke's works will perhaps think that he has pressed their meaning rather far; but further consideration will show that he has correctly expressed Bolingbroke's spirit and purpose.

474.

Letter on Tillotson.

475.

Ch. iv. 328.

476.

Ch. iv. 227, 8.

477.

Ch. iv. 405, 272.

478.

The history of Apologetik passes through the same phases, and when it devotes itself to the later forms, becomes of less general interest, and is more simply literary; which illustrates the fact that the later doubts are of a much less practical and more recondite character than those hitherto named.

479.

Hume (1711-1776). For his philosophy, see Tennemann, Geschichte, xi. 425; Ritter, Christliche Philosophie, viii. b. 7. ch. ii.; Cousin, Histoire de la Philosophie Moderne, Leçon xi.; Morell, History of Philosophy, i. 338; Lord Brougham's Preliminary Discourse to Paley's Natural Theology, p. 248. For his religious opinions, see Leland, Lett. 16-21; Lechler pp. 425-34. His views on miracles were answered by Paley, Bp. John Douglas, Campbell, and Chalmers.

480.

Works, vol. iv. Inquiry Concerning the Human Understanding; Essay xi. on Providence and Future Life; Essay x. on Miracles.

481.

The miracles connected with the Abbé Paris were defended in La Verité des Miracles de M. Paris, by C. de Montgéron, 1745. See concerning them, C. Butler's Church of France, (Works, v. pp. 135-142); Bp. John Douglas's “Criterion by which the true miracles contained in the New Testament may be distinguished from those of Pagans and Papists;” Tholuck's Vermischte Schriften, i. 183.

482.

E.g. by Professor Powell, in Essays and Reviews.

483.

This line of thought concerning the necessity of establishing the antecedent probability of the fact, in order that the evidence may be logically convincing, is adopted by two writers of very different opinions, by Mr. Mansel (Essay in the Aids to Faith, § 18-23), and Mr. J. S. Mill (Logic, vol. ii. b. iii. ch. 25. § 2). The distinction between wonder and miracle is allowed by Dean Lyall (Propædia Prophetica); and Mr. Penrose (The use of Miracles in proving a Revelation). Cfr. also Doederlin's Instit. Theol. Christ, § 9, 10.

484.

See Aids to Faith, Mansel's Essay, § 22.

485.

There follows hence another peculiarity in reference to miracles; viz., that we require an interpreting mind to explain them. This is the reason why so many thoughtful men believe that the outburst of fire when Julian tried to rebuild the Jewish temple, and the wonder of the thorn in the history of Port Royal, were nothing more than natural wonders. If the final cause be considered to have been sufficient in these cases to warrant divine interposition, at least there was no interpreter to explain them, nor any revealed message to be taught. It must be conceded that this trait is wanting in some miracles recorded in scripture, but not in those which are wrought to attest a revelation, those which we use in proof of a special message from the unseen world. Werenfels (Opusc. Theol. 1718, Diss. v.) has given tests for the discrimination of miracles which are quoted by Van Mildert (Boyle Lect. II. p. 584).

486.

Cfr. Dean Trench's remarks on the apologetic value of miracles, (Notes on Miracles, Introd. ch. vi). In the same work will be found an excellent and interesting account of the various assaults made on the argument from miracles. He classifies the assaults as follows: (1) the Jewish, (2) the heathen (Celsus, &c.), (3) the pantheistic (Spinoza), (4) the sceptical (Hume), (5) that which regards miracles as such only subjectively (Schleiermacher), (6) the rationalistic (Paulus), (7) the historico-critical (Woolston, Strauss). With Dean Trench's remarks. Compare also Pascal, Pensées, part ii. art. 19. § 9; Lyall, Prop. Proph. p. 441; Dr. Arnold's Lectures on Modern History, pp. 133, 137.

487.

E.g. Lessing, &c. Reimarus, &c. See Lect. VI.

488.

Butler (1692-1752). The Analogy was published in 1736. The reader's attention is invited to the excellent edition of it by bishop Fitzgerald (1st ed. 1849), and the able memoir and criticism which precede. Mr. Bartlett has also written a memoir of Butler. Cfr. also Blunt's Essays, p. 490 seq.

489.

For example, some of the physical proofs of immortality in part i. ch. i. are weakened by the discoveries of physiology; and those in favour of the miraculous character of creation, in part ii. ch. ii. would be regarded as of small value by those who hold the hypothesis either of the transmutation of species, or of their occurrence according to a law of natural selection. Some things of a different kind in Butler, which need correction, are pointed out in Fitzgerald's edition. See e.g. p. 184, note.

490.

This is the objection taken by Tholuck (Vermischt. Schrift. p. 192, 3.) A somewhat similar objection is quoted by Fitzgerald from Mackintosh, Introd. p. 49, upon both of which he offers criticisms. A kindred objection has been stated (probably by Mr. Martineau) in the National Review, No. 15. Jan. 1859, (pp. 211-214,) and another by Miss S. Hennell in the Sceptical Tendency of Butler's Analogy, 1857, in which she traces doubt in Butler's life as well as teaching. Others may be found stated and examined in bishop Hampden's Philosophical Evidence of Christianity, 1827. (pp. 229-291.)

491.

This conjecture is given by Fitzgerald in the life prefixed to his edition of the Analogy (p. 36), where also two passages are quoted, one from Foster, and the other from Berkeley, which certain passages of Butler resemble. It would be interesting to know whether the work of Dr. Peter Browne on Things Divine and Natural conceived of by Analogy, 1733, had come under Butler's notice. Many similar passages, as well as references to the sources of the difficulties which Butler answers, are given in the notes to Fitzgerald's edition. Mr. Pattison also (Essays and Reviews, p. 286) has expressed an opinion that Butler was much assisted by the works of his predecessors. The probability is, that in all great works their authors assimilate an amount of information current in the age, as well as create new material. This was probably the case even in works like Euclid's Geometry and Aristotle's Natural History and Organum.

492.

The value of Butler's argument is fully discussed in the admirable work on Butler by bishop Hampden before quoted, which is the best existing commentary on the author: second to it are Chalmers's Natural Religion and Bridgwater Treatise.

493.

Hampden's Phil. Evid. (131-228.)

494.

The revival in the early part of the century was due to the agency of Wesley and Whitfield outside the church; in the latter to those of such men as Romaine, Newton, and ultimately Simeon, within it.

495.

E.g., W. Law's Serious Call, and Christian Perfection.

496.

Viz., by means of the Moravians of Herrnhut, whose founder, Zinzendorf, himself sprang from the pietist movement.

497.

Zech. iv. 6.

498.

The most effective sketch of the intellectual and social state of France in the last century is given in Buckle's History of Civilization, vol. i.; especially in ch. 8, 11, 12, and 14. His narrative only sets forth the dark side of the picture, and the Christian reader frequently feels pained at some of his remarks; but it is generally correct so far as it goes, and the references are copious to the original sources which the author used. I have therefore frequently rested content with quoting this work without indicating further sources. An instructive account of the centralization under Louis XIV is given in Sir J. Stephens's Lectures on the History of France, Lect. 21-23. The reign of Louis XV is treated in De Tocqueville's Histoire Philosophie du Règne de Louis XV. A brief view of the history may be seen in the works of the liberal Roman catholic, C. Butler, vol. v. on Church of France.

499.

The passages from Benoit's Histoire de l'Edict de Nantes, vol. v. p. 887 seq., and Quick's Synodicon, i. p. 130 seq., respecting the cruelties of the dragonnades, are quoted at length in Buckle, i. p. 624, note.

500.

This occurred in the contest concerning the Gallican liberties, and the dispute about the Bull Unigenitus. Concerning the former see C. Butler's Church of France (Works, vol. v.) p. 34 seq., and Hase's Church History, § 424; and, on the latter, Butler ut sup. 188-249, and Hase, § 420.

501.

The nature of the literature of the reign of Louis XIV, and the alteration of position of authors in the new reign, are explained in Buckle, i. ch. 11 and 12.

502.

1715-1723.

503.

Literature really became a political power, and exercised a similar influence to that of the modern newspaper press.

504.

Professor Webb of Dublin, in his work, The Intellectualism of Locke, has given evidence which establishes this point.

505.

On Condillac see Cousin, Cours de la Philosophie Morale, leçon 3; Renouvier, Philosophie Moderne, v. 2. § 4 Villemain, Cours de Literature, ii. 20; Morell's History of Philosophy, i. 148 seq.; Lewes' History of Philosophy.

506.

It may prevent ambiguity to state that the term materialism, when employed in these lectures, is not used in its modern popular sense of mere animalism, the obedience to the lower side of human nature; but in its technical sense, as the kind of philosophy which so regards spirit to be a property of matter as to produce inferences unfavourable to the belief in immortality or moral obligation.

507.

On the scepticism of Montaigne (1532-1592) see Tennemann's Geschichte der Philosophie, ix. 443; Vinet's Essai de Philosophie Morale; Sainte-Beuve Critiques et Portraits Littéraires, vol. iv.; Hallam's History of Literature, ii. 29; Emerson's Representative Men; and R. W. Church in Oxford Essays, 1857.

508.

On Charron (1541-1603) see Tennemann, Id. ix. 527. Sainte-Beuve, t. xi.; Hallam, i. 570, ii. 362, 511; and the article in the Biogr. Univ.

509.

On Bayle (1647-1706) see Tennemann, xi. 268 seq.; Renouvier, Phil. Mod. iii. 3. § 6; Sainte-Beuve, iii. 392.

510.

On Fontenelle (1657-1757) see Sainte-Beuve, iii. and the Biogr. Univ. Another writer, Dolet (1509-1546), was also suspected, at an earlier period, not only of scepticism but of atheism. See his Life, by J. Boulmier, 1857.

511.

On R. Simon see Lect. III. p. 83.

512.

See Lechler's Gesch. des Eng. Deismus, p. 445.

513.

On the great eagerness for English literature in France at that time, see the facts collected by Buckle, i. (658-670).

514.

A list of those that are said to have been translated is given by Lechler, Id. 446. On the comparison of English and French deism see Henke's Kirchengeschichte, vi. s. 131.

515.

1726-1729. Cfr. Villemain, Cours de Litt. i. (168-177). A letter of Fleury, quoted from Schlosser by Lechler (Id. 446), proves that his fears were excited by the influence which English literature was producing.

516.

On this charge of attack about 1750 see Buckle, i. 716-718; and on the origin of the attack on the church, and the causes why it preceded that on the state, Id. 684 seq. Cfr. also De Tocqueville's Louis XV, t. ii. ch. 10.

517.

Voltaire lived 1694-1778. The Life by Lord Brougham, in Lives of Men of Letters, is not only very full of facts, but contains some very able criticism, especially on the dramatic works of Voltaire. More biographies have been given in this lecture than in others, in accordance with the reasons explained in Lec. I. p. 33, because in this period the infidel influence was the result of the teachers, as much as of the ideas taught. See concerning Voltaire, Henke's Kirchengesch. vi. 166; Schlosser, Hist. of Eighteenth Century, i. 2. § 1, iv. § 1. Bartholmess, Hist. Crit. des Doctr. Relig. de la Phil. Mod. i. 211 seq.; Bungener's Voltaire.

518.

In 1726.

519.

Sirven was condemned in 1762, on an unjust suspicion of causing his daughter's death, to prevent her becoming a protestant.

520.

La Barre was a youth of seventeen, who, on the suspicion of having injured a crucifix on the bridge of Abbeville, was condemned (1763) to be tortured on the rack, to have his tongue cut out, and to be put to death; which sentence was literally executed. See Biographie Universelle, sub Voltaire, vol. xix. p. 484, and Brougham's Life of him (94-99).

521.

The Calas were a family at Toulouse, the father of which was put to death (1762) by catholic fanaticism. Voltaire investigated the facts with care; and, by instituting legal proceedings at Paris, got the sentence of the Toulouse court reversed, and all the reparation that was possible made to the family. Money to defray the expenses was sent to him from all the reformed parts of Europe. The English queen (Charlotte) and the archbishop of Canterbury (Secker) headed the English subscription list. The facts have lately been reinvestigated by the accomplished A. Coquerel fils., Jean Calas et sa Famille, 1858. The narrative is told in the Westminster Review, No. 28, for Oct. 1858. See also Henke's Kirchengeschichte, vi. 298 seq. On the tomb of Voltaire, now a cenotaph, in the vaults of the Pantheon, is an inscription, “Il défendit Calas, Sirven, De la Barre, et Montbailly.” Since the Pantheon has been converted into a church, the side of the tomb which bears this inscription has been concealed by a screen, so that visitors are only permitted to view one of the other sides.

522.

Carlyle's Miscellaneous Works, vol. ii. It will be observed that many of the following remarks are abbreviated from this source.

523.

Carlyle, Id. p. 113.

524.

i.e. the age of Louis XV. See Id. pp. 180-185.

525.

On Voltaire's power of ridicule, see Id. 120, 167; and on his power of order, 163 seq.

526.

Id. p. 161.

527.

Id. p. 119.

528.

The question of Voltaire's blasphemy is treated by lord Brougham (Life, p. 7).

529.

The four volumes are xxxii-xxxv of the Œuvres Complètes, 8vo. 1785. Vol. xxxii contains the philosophical works, of which ch. 2, 6, 7, 9, of the Traité de Metaphysique, relate to religion; also the Profession de Foi des Théistes; the Homélies prononcées à Londres. Vol. xxxiii contains the Examen de Milord Bolingbroke; and the Epitre aux Romains. Vol. xxxiv, La Bible enfin Expliquée, where the notes contain Voltaire's views fully. Vol. xxiv, Histoire de l'Etablissement du Christianisme.

530.

On the persecutions which fell on literary men, see Buckle, i. (672-684.)

531.

The proof of this assertion is clear in his Traité de Metaphysique, c. 2. (Œuvres, vol. xxxii); in Letter iii of Memmius to Cicero; in the Profess. de Foi des Théistes; and is shown by the fact of his opposition to the Encyclopædists on the ground of their atheism; which is confirmed by the inscription on his tomb, “Il combattit les athées.” It is his blasphemous tone which has, not unnaturally, given rise to the idea of his atheism.

532.

“Ecrasez l'infame” are the words, the initials of which, signed at the end of his letters to infidel friends, baffled the French police. Buckle considers them to have been designed against the French church, but offers no proof. It is to be feared that they were rather intended against the Christian religion, if not against the sacred person of our blessed Lord.

533.

See his Commentary (Œuvres, vol. xxxiv.), the Homélies (vol. xxxii,), and the Histoire (vol. xxxiv.).

534.

On the contrast of his historic tone to that of Bossuet, see Buckle, i. 726, and Schlosser, History of the Eighteenth Century, (English translation), vol. i. ch. iv. § 2. p. 273.

535.

Compare Carlyle's remarks ut sup. p. 175.

536.

Id. 105.

537.

On Frederick's entertainment of these French refugees, see Henke, Kirchengesch. vi. 180; Schlosser, vol. i. 2. § 3.

538.

La Mettrie (1709-1751). His views are seen in the Discours Préliminaire to his Hist. Nat. del âme, and in the L'homme machiné (1748). See a criticism on him in Ph. Damiron's Memoires pour servir à l'Histoire de Philosophie au 18e siècle (vol. i. pp. 1-49), reprinted from the Report of the Académie des Sciences; also Henke, vi, 13.

539.

De Prades (1720-1782). See Henke, vi. 201; also the article in the Biographie Universelle.

540.

D'Argens (1704-1771). See Damiron, Id. ii. 256-376.

541.

On the old coteries of Rambouillet, &c., see Hallam's Hist. of Literature, iii. 137.

542.

D'Alembert (1717-83). For particulars of his life, see Brougham's memoir in Lives of Men of Letters. For his philosophy, see Damiron, ii. 1-114; Henke, vi. 218; Schlosser, i. 4. § 7. His infidelity was known to friends, but not openly avowed.

543.

Marmontel (1723-99). See Sainte-Beuve, Portraits, vol. iv.; Schlosser, ii. 2. § 1.

544.

Grimm, 1723-1807. See Sainte-Beuve, vol. vii. The Correspondance Litt. par le Baron Grimm et Diderot is the great source for the knowledge of his character.

545.

St. Lambert (1717-1803). See Damiron, ii. 144-256.

546.

Abbé Raynal (1711-96). See Schlosser, ii. 2. § 1. Henke, vol. vi. enumerates many more of the same class. Particulars of all are given in the Biographie Universelle.

547.

The following refer to places where the tendency and spirit of this whole movement are described, as well as literary information supplied. Henke, vi. 208, &c.; Bartholmess, i. 117-210; Lerminier's Influence de la Phil. du 18e siècle (1833); Morell's Hist. of Phil. i. 158, &c.; Maurice, Mod. Phil. p. 527-59; H. Martin's Hist. de France, vol. xv. and xvi. liv. 96, 99, 100, 101; Renouvier, Mod. Phil. b. v. ch. 2. § 6-8; also Kuno Fischer's Bacon, p. 451, and the references above given to Schlosser and to Damiron; Tennemann (Manual, § 378, &c.) also gives many literary references.

548.

Diderot (1713-84). His life and character have been sketched by Carlyle, (Misc. Works, vol. iv.); also by Damiron, ii. (227-324); St. Beuve, i. 355. Also see Villemain, Tableau de la Litt. au 18e siècle, lec. xix. 20. His novels are the parent of the impure novel of modern times. See Schlosser, i. 4. § 5, ii 2. § 1.

549.

In the Essai sur le Mérite et la Vertu, pp. 73, 87, he allows deism, the God of moral order. Similarly in the Pensées Philos. § 46, but it is the God of nature. But in the Dialogue with D'Alembert he teaches atheism. On his theological views see Damiron, ii. 261 seq.

550.

§ 25, &c.

551.

See Carlyle, Misc. Works, iv. 322.

552.

Helvetius (1715-1771). See C. Remusat in Rev. des Deux Mondes, Aug. 15, 1858. On the circle of Helvetius see Carlyle ut sup. 287 seq.; and on their atheism Buckle, i. 786 seq. Concerning Helvetius himself see Ritter's Christliche Philos. viii. b. ix. ch. 2; Cousin's Hist. de Phil. Morale, leçon 7; Schlosser, i. 4. § 6.

553.

Viz., De l'Esprit et de l'Homme (Œuvres compl. 1818, vol. i. and ii.). Both treatises are excellently analysed in the table of contents prefixed to the work. The allusions in the text here may be thought to fail from their brevity in showing that Helvetius's opinions were a logical corollary from his principles; they cannot at least give any notion of the great power of analysis exhibited by him in expressing his own views.

554.

In Discourse ii.

555.

Id.

556.

D'Holbach (1723-89). The Système de la Nature bears the name of a Mirabaud, secretary to the Academy. Some have thought it to be written by Robinet, author of a similar work. (His works are discussed in Damiron, ii, 480 seq.) Concerning the work see Villemain, iii. leç. 38; Damiron, i. (93-177); Ritter, Christ. Philos. viii. b. 9. ch. 3; Schlosser, i. 4. § 1. On D'Holbach's view of God see Damiron, Id. p. 155, &c.; Buckle, i. 787, note. The Système de la Nature is partly analysed and criticised in Brougham's Discourse on Natural Theology, pp. 232-47. It comprised two volumes, and is followed by a volume containing three small treatises relating to the natural principles of morals, and social philosophy. The work was refuted by Bergier (1771).

557.

Partie 1ere ch. iii. and iv.

558.

Part ii. ch. vii.

559.

Part ii. ch. xi.

560.

Part i. ch. xiii.

561.

Part ii. ch. i.

562.

Id. ch. iv. and v.

563.

Damiron discuses, in addition to the writers already named, two or three others, viz., Naigeon, Sylv. Marechal, and De la Lande, whose names are not introduced here into the text.

564.

On Rousseau see Villemain ii. leçon (23-24); Brougham's life of him in Men of Letters; Bartholmess, i. 233-270; Henke, vi. 232, especially p. 253, which refers to his theology; Schlosser, i. 4. § 4, and ii. § 2; St. Marc Girardin on the Emile in Rev. des Deux Mondes, Dec. 1854; and an article, too favourably written, but full of information, in the Westminster Review, Oct. 1859, which has been of much use for this lecture.

565.

The chief facts of Rousseau's life are these:—Born 1712; came to Paris, 1741; wrote Sur les Sciences et les Arts, 1750; L'inegalité parmi les hommes, 1753; lived in the Paris coteries, 1754-60; wrote Nouvelle Heloise, 1760; Le Contrat Social, 1761, and Emile; an exile in Switzerland 1762, where he wrote Lettres de la Montagne; accompanied Hume to England 1776; wrote his Confessions; returned to the Continent 1767; died 1770.

566.

There are some good remarks on this theory in the article in the Westminster Review before quoted, the substance of which is to show that Rousseau's doctrine was false in its method and in its tendencies. It marked the stage of inquiry, indicative of the last part of the last century, when men, ignoring the teaching of history, strove to solve problems by means of abstract speculations; the attempt to study the origin of phenomena instead of the facts of their progressive manifestation. The social contract is nothing but the description of the collective development to which society tends. The scheme was visionary: but, as a protest against unjust monopolies which existed in that age, it woke up a response in society (cfr. Mill on Liberty, p. 47-50); and in its tendency it made Rousseau the precursor of the French revolution; but in typifying that movement it represented only its transient aspect of subversive energy, not its work of political reformation.

567.

Emile, b. iv. (See Œuvres, vol. iv. p. 14-119, ed. Paris, 1823, by Musset-Pathay.)

568.

Id. p. 17-20.

569.

Id. p. 22-30.

570.

Emile, p. 33: “Si la matière mue me montre une volonté, la matière mue, selon de certaines lois me montre une intelligence. C'est mon second article de foi.”

571.

P. 34, 36.

572.

P. 40-49.

573.

P. 50-53.

574.

P. 57-75.

575.

P. 83-86.

576.

P. 75-119.

577.

P. 86, &c.

578.

P. 86.

579.

Emile, pp. 105-107.

580.

The comparison of the statements of the Confessions with fragments of Rousseau lately published, shows that many statements which they contain in reference to other persons is false. The statement in the text is made in deference to the opinion latterly stated (e.g. in Heine's Allemagne), that there is a general air of romance pervading the work. If the statements in reference to himself are untrue, the narrative is only a greater proof of the immorality of the author. The supposition however seems groundless. The defender of Rousseau, G. H. Morin (Essai, 1851), does not exculpate his author by impeaching the historical truthfulness of the Confessions.

581.

The high moral standard is not of course seen in the Confessions, which show Rousseau to have been the incarnation of selfishness, and much worse than most of the other unbelievers, but is exhibited in the Emile. The fact that the author of the latter work could write the former is a sad example of a man knowing, like the ancient heathens, how to do good and doing it not.

582.

Henke (vi. p. 267 seq.) draws out the comparison of Voltaire with Rousseau in an excellent manner. Coleridge (Friend, vol. i. 165-186) has given a comparison of Voltaire with Erasmus, and of Rousseau with Luther.

583.

See Villemain, i. 14, 15., ii. 22; Schlosser, i. 2. § 2., 4. § 3, and ii. 2. § 2.

584.

See Buckle, i. (772-783).

585.

Compare Macaulay's remarks in reference to the Revolution, Essays (ed. 8vo. 1843), ii. 215, &c.

586.

For the causes of the revolution compare the statements of Alison, Hist. of Europe, i. ch. ii. and iii., and Buckle, i. (836-850).

587.

On the incipient hostility to religion in the National Assembly, see Alison, vol. ii. ch. v. § 46, Id. § 32-35. On the full development of it in the Convention, see Id. iv. ch. xiv. § (45-48).

588.

Nov. 9.

589.

Concerning this act of Robespierre, see Alison, iv. ch. xv. § 23, 24, 27.

590.

On the state of religion under the Directory, see Alison, vol. v. ch. xix. § 41, and vol. vi, ch. xxiv. § 19.

591.

See M. Gregoire's Histoire de la Théophilanthropie, forming part of his Histoire des Sectes Relig., and the notice of it in the Quarterly Review, No. 56. Also the references in Alison, vi. ch. xxiv. § 19; Staüdlin, Geschichte des Rationalismus und Supernat. 1826, (44-54.)

592.

On the state under Napoleon, see Alison, viii. ch. xxxv. § 1, and 30-40.

593.

April 11, 1802.

594.

See Morell, Hist, of Phil. vol. i. ch. iv. § 2.

595.

Les Ruines ou Meditations sur les Revolutions des Empires (1791.) A similar view of religion is taken in Dupuis, Origine de tous les Cultes, 1795.

596.

Ch. ii.

597.

Ch. iii.

598.

Ch. v.

599.

Ch. vii-xii.

600.

Ch. xv.

601.

Ch. xix.

602.

Ch. xx. &c.

603.

Ch. xxii. p. 218.

604.

P. 226.

605.

P. 232.

606.

P. 238.

607.

P. 255.

608.

P. 262.

609.

P. 268.

610.

P. 274.

611.

P. 277.

612.

P. 285.

613.

P. 286.

614.

P. 287.

615.

P. 288.

616.

Ch. xxiv. p. 320.

617.

Such as the idea of the plurality of worlds suggested by Fontenelle.

618.

The apologetic literature of this period of the French church is not powerful. See Buckle, i. 692, note; and Alison, i. 2. § 62.

619.

The influence on Germany will be seen in Lect. VI.

620.

In Lect. IV.

621.

Gibbon (1737-1794). See Autobiography (Milman's edition 1839), ch. iii. p. 73, &c.

622.

Cfr. some remarks (p. 27, 28,) in an instructive paper on Gibbon in the National Review, No. 3, on the relation of his method and style to his age.

623.

Milman and Guizot.

624.

The first of these is explained by Dr. Milman, Preface to edition of Gibbon, p. 10, and the article in the Quarterly Review, No. 100.

625.

Cfr. Mackintosh (Life, i. 244), quoted by Milman in his edition of Gibbon, c. xv. first note.

626.

The remarks which follow are partly taken from the above-named article in the National Review (pp. 33-36). Nearly the same thing is said by Miss Hennell in the fifth Baillie Prize Essay on the early Christian anticipation of the end of the world, 1860, a treatise which in other respects is very objectionable.

627.

Bp. Watson's Apology for Christianity was a reply to Gibbon, 1776. Dean Milman's notes to chapters xv. and xvi. of Gibbon are an excellent comment and criticism.

628.

Byron, Childe Harold, iii. 105-108.

629.

Paine (1737-1809), published Rights of Man, 1790; Age of Reason, 1794. See the life by Cheetham, 1809, and Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary. Bp. Watson's Apology for the Bible was a reply to Paine (1796).

630.

Anacharsis Clootz.

631.

The danger arising from republican clubs is described in Alison, iv. ch. xvi. § 6; and in W. Hamilton Reed's Rise and Dissolution of Infidel Societies in the Metropolis, 1800. See also the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords on them, 1801. The works of Godwin on Political Justice, 1793, and of Mary Woolstencraft on the Rights of Women, are generally adduced as illustrations of the prevalence of French political principles at that time in England.

632.

Part i. pp. 3-19, and part ii. pp. 8-83.

633.

Part i. pp. 3, 4; 21-50; part ii. pp. 83-93.

634.

P. 44.

635.

Part ii. pp. 10-83.

636.

Part i. pp. 37-44. This difficulty, first suggested by Fontenelle, is met in the eloquent Astronomical Discourses (1822) of Chalmers. The controversy has been newly opened by the brilliant essay on the Plurality of Worlds (1853), supposed to be by Dr. Whewell, and pursued by Dr. Brewster (More Worlds than One), Professor Baden Powell (Essays on the Order of Nature), and by Professor H. S. Smith in the Oxford Essays, 1855.

637.

Page 20.

638.

Part i. pp. 3, 4; p. 50.

639.

Robert Owen (1771-1858). About the year 1800 he became known in connexion with schemes of industrial reform at the Lanark mills; and from 1813-19 conducted them as a social experiment to carry out his views. He attempted also to spread his opinions in America. After his return to England, by means of lectures and his work, The New Moral World, he taught them in the manufacturing towns; and they were widely spread about the time of the Chartist movement (1839-41). His opinions may be learned from his Essays on the Formation of Character (1818), which explain his Lanark system; and especially his New Moral World, published about 1839. His religious opinions may be gathered from the Debate on the Evidences and on Society with A. Campbell, 1839. His autobiography was published in 1857, and a review of his philosophy by W. L. Sargeant, 1860. An article also related to him in the Westminster Review for Oct. 1860. See also Morell's History of Philosophy, i. 386 seq. Mr. R. Dale Owen, son of the above, published several deist tracts in America, from about 1840-44.

640.

It has been considered unnecessary to name three other unimportant writers, Burgh, Farmer, a writer on the subject of Demoniacs, and Carlisle, who was prosecuted in 1830.

641.

Byron (1788-1824). The Vision of Judgment, written in 1821, has been already referred to in Lecture III. as a vehicle for sceptical banter. For a brief comparison between the scepticism of Byron and Shelley, see remarks in the Westminster Review, April 1841, by Mr. G. H. Lewes.

642.

Bacon, Nov. Org. Aph. 52, 53.

643.

Shelley (1792-1822). The materials are abundant for understanding the character and works of Shelley, in biographies both friendly and hostile. The second edition of the Shelley Memorials, by lady Shelley, 1859, contains an essay on Christianity by him. Several important articles in Reviews have been published in reference to him, among which it is desirable to call attention to the one in the National Review, No. 6, Oct. 1856, which contains a very instructive analysis of his mental and moral character. It has been used in the few remarks which follow.

644.

The pamphlet appears to have been an anonymous statement of the weakness of the argument for the existence of deity; negative rather than positive. See the account of the transaction and its results in T. J. Hogg's Life of Shelley, 1858, vol. i. pp. (269-286).

645.

E.g. in the Ode to Liberty (§ 15 and 16), written in 1820.

646.

In the Adonais, § 49-51. For Shelley's own cremation and burial, see the Memorials by lady Shelley, p. 201.

647.

This is well put in the Review above quoted, (p. 356).

648.

The Reviewer thinks that the first stage was in tone like Lucretius, i.e. Epicureanism. The second and third are described here in the text. The Queen Mab (end of the first division) expressed the first stage; the first speech of Ahasuerus in the Hellas is a specimen of the second; and the Adonais (43 and 52) of the third.

649.

This contrast however in the evidences, though true in a general way, must not be pressed so as to imply an absolutely defined line of chronological separation between the two classes of evidence.

650.

Robert Boyle died in 1692, and founded the lecture by his last will. The lectures commenced in the same year. Bampton's were founded in 1751; but none delivered till 1780. Hulse died in 1790; but the lectures did not commence till 1820. A list of the lectures delivered in each series may be found in Darling's Cyclopædia Bibliographica.

651.

The remarks on evidence in Nos. 73 and 84 of the Tracts for the Times, and the tone assumed by the ultramontane writers of France, are instances of the undervaluing evidences from the former causes. The deist literature of the last century, and the writings of Carlyle in the present, are instances of that which arises from the latter.

652.

I.e. they belong essentially to the protestant stand-point in theology.

653.

See above, p. 160. The view which Blunt took of the evidences is given in his Essays, p. 133, reprinted from the Quarterly Review, April 1828.

654.

The controversy raised by the Tübingen school refers to the date of books of the New Testament which testify to facts and doctrines. Supposing this primary question settled in favour of our commonly received view, then the further question follows concerning the honesty and opportunity of information of the narrators; and it is here that the arguments of Lyttleton, Lardner, and Paley, in the last century, find their proper place. See below, Lect. VIII.

655.

John iv. 37, 38, 36.

656.

On Rationalism see Note 21 at the end of this volume.

657.

The sources for the knowledge of this period are briefly stated in the Preface to these lectures.

658.

See p. 9, 99. Hundeshagen (Der Deutsche Prot. § 13) insists on the prime importance of the spiritual element as the moving force in the Reformation.

659.

Melancthon and Camerarius, Calvin and Beza, represent the union of learning with theology; the second Scaliger, the Stephenses, Casaubon, and others, are instances of the great lay scholars.

660.

The date of the former is 1577; of the latter 1618. These are named as the events from which the theology in the Lutheran and Calvinistic churches respectively became fixed. Buddeus (Isagoge, p. 239) dates it rather from the confession of Ratisbon, 1601. On this dogmatic period see Der Deutsche Prot. § 9; Hagenbach's Dogmengesch. § 216-18; Amand Saintes' Critical History of Rationalism (transl.) ch. v. and vi; Pusey's Historical Inquiry, part i. pp. (1-52), part ii. ch. viii. and ix. (1830). It was this period which produced the various books of Loci Communes Theologici. The only exception to this scholastic spirit was Calixt. and the school of Helmstadt, which in tone was like the school of Saumur, (Cameron, Amyrauld, and Placæus,) or like Baxter, the controversies connected with which prove the rule. On it see Schröckh, Christliche Kirchengeschichte seit der Reformation (1804), viii. 243 seq. On the theologians of this period see Weismann, Introd. in Memorabilia Eccles. Hist. (1718), p. 919 seq.

661.

This view of inspiration is stated in Quenstedt's Syst. Theol., and Calov's Syst. Theol. i. 554 seq., about the end of the seventeenth century. Dr. Pusey (part i. 140) refers to passages of Semler's Lebens-Beschreibung illustrative of these opinions in the German church of that period. On the similar controversy which existed in the French protestant church see note above, p. 113. This is only one instance among many of the close analogy which exists in the development of thought between the reformed churches in different lands.

662.

These are the chief influences which the German writers enumerate. See Tholuck ii. § 2-5, Kahnis, History of German Protest. (transl. 1856) i. 1.

663.

On Leibnitz and his system see Tennemann, Geschichte xi. 93 seq.; Ritter's Christliche Phil. viii. 47 seq.; Renouvier, Phil. Mod. (278-90); and especially Maine de Biran's Life of Leibnitz in the Biographie Universelle. Also Morell's History of Philosophy, i. 220, and H. Rogers's Essays (Essay on Leibnitz,) reprinted from the Edinburgh Review, July 1846.

664.

On these canons see Sir W. Hamilton's Lectures on Logic, vol. i. lect. vi.; Mansel's Prolegomena, ch. vi.; and Mills's Logic, vol. ii. b. v. ch. iii. § 5.

665.

Wolff, 1679-1754. Professor of Philosophy at Halle; in 1723 expelled; restored in 1741; Lange and Buddeus were his great opponents (see Hagenbach's Dogmengesch. § 274). His philosophy consisted of an attempt to deduce à priori a system of (1) cosmology, (2) psychology, (3) natural theology. The latter relates to God, His attributes in Himself and in creation. See some remarks by Mr. Mansel on his scheme (art. Metaphysic. Encycl. Brit., 8vo. ed. p. 603). On his philosophy see Ritter, Christ. Phil. vii. b. x. ch. i.; Tennemann's Manual, § (363-5); Morell, i. 228; Rosenkrantz, Gesch. der Kantischen Schule, b. i. part iii. ch. i. His religious opinions are found in the Theol. Nat. 1736, and Philos. Moralis, 1750, and in his Vernuenftige Gedanken von Gott. 1747 (p. 604). See on them Henke, Kirchengesch. viii. § 3; Mangel's Bampton Lectures, note 3. And on the effects of his philosophy, and the state of theology in Germany at the time of its influence, see Tholuck's Vermischte Schriften, ii. § 2 and 1.

666.

In 1723, in consequence of the petition from the pietist professors, Frederick I, deposed Wolff. See Kahnis (Engl. Transl.) p. 114.

667.

In reference to the introduction of Wolff's philosophy, the reference to Tholuck has been already given. See also Schröch's Gesch. viii. 26; Lechler, 448; Amand Saintes' Critical History of Rationalism, i. ch. ix.; Hagenbach's Dogmengesch. § 274; Kahnis, p. 110. Kahnis (115) names Baumgarten, Canz, and Toellner, as Wolff's pupils. Mosheim and the Walches were too exclusively literary to be affected by the new philosophy. Canz of Tübingen was the first to apply the system to doctrinal theology (1728). See Pusey, part i. 116.

668.

Locke's philosophy in a distorted form was introduced by the French philosophers who lived at the court of Frederick II.

669.

On the introduction of English deism, see Tholuck, § 3. A few only of the deist writings were translated, (e.g. Tindal by Schmidt in 1741,) but very many of the replies; which proves how much attention they excited. See the list in Lechler, p. 447. Up to 1760 no fewer than 106 answers had been written to Tindal alone. Kortholt, in his work De Tribus Impostoribus, (viz. Herbert, Hobbes, Spinoza,) 1680, was the first to notice English deism. The appeal to reason in these replies had the same effect as that noticed in the philosophy of Wolff.

670.

For Maupertuis see Biographie Universelle. The others have been named in the notes to Lect. V.

671.

See Tholuck, § 4 and 5. He considers that the French literature, with the exception of Bayle, did not affect the Germans, on account of its shallowness; but doubtless it did so indirectly.

672.

This division does not essentially differ from the threefold one adopted by Kahnis, into the illumination period, that of the renovation, and of the church renovating itself.

673.

We place the limit at 1810, because it is the date of the foundation of the university of Berlin, which was the home of the reaction.

674.

This date marks the spread of the Kantian philosophy, as will be shown below.

675.

There were thus three chief phases within the church; the dogmatic at Leipsic, the critical at Göttingen, the pietistic eclecticism of Semler at Halle. If to this we add the pietism which still reigned at Tübingen, as seen in Pfaff, &c., we have the condition of the four universities which were at that time the chief centres of intellectual activity in Germany.

676.

Lessing, along with Nicholai, conducted the Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek from 1765.

677.

On the purpose and nature of these institutions, which arose at Dessau about 1774, see Schlosser, i. 5, 3; ii. 3, 2; Kahnis, p. 47. On Basedow (1724-1790), see Rose on Rationalism, p. 66, note (second edition), and Schröch, viii. 52.

678.

J. A. Ernesti (1707-1781), was author of Inst. Interpret. Nov. Test. 1761 (translated by bishop Terrot). His chief labours were the editions of several classical authors, among which the most valuable was Cicero. See Schlosser, ii. 187; Kahnis, 120; Pusey, 132; Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. ii. The Rosenmüllers (the father, J. G. Rosenmüller, on the New Testament; the son, E. F. Rosenmüller the antiquarian on the Old,) manifest much the same spirit as Ernesti.

679.

Joh. Dav. Michaelis (1716-1791). His chief works were, Gruend-liche Erklaerung des Mosaischen Rechts, and the Einleitung in die Schrift, des Neuen Bundes. The former handled the Hebrew legislation in a free spirit. The latter work was translated by bishop Marsh, and led to the controversy about the composition of the Gospels, to which allusion will be made in the notes of Lecture VII. See Kahnis, p. 121; Henke, viii. part ii. § 2. Jerusalem and Spalding manifest the same spirit as Michaelis.

680.

Semler (1725-1791), Professor at Halle. His Lebens-beschreibung, published 1781, is the great source for studying his mental development and the history of his times. His works are numerous, consisting chiefly of Commentaries and Ecclesiastical History. He was one of the first to open up the study of the history of doctrine (dogmengeschichte). The works which exhibit his rationalism are chiefly the Frei Untersuchen des Canons, 1711; Versuch einer freiern lehrart, 1777; Introduction to Baumgarten's Dogmatik; Institutiones ad Doctrinam Christianam liberaliter docendam, 1774. His character is discussed at length in Tholuck. § 6; Pusey, 138, &c.; Schlosser, ii. 187; Am. Saintes, b. ii. ch. ii. and iii. On the successors of the writers recently named, see Am. Saintes, b. ii, ch. iv.

681.

In the work on the Canon named in the last note.

682.

See the historic sketch of interpretation given in Planck's Introduction to Sacred Philology, (English translation, 168-186). Interesting information is supplied in Credner's article Interpretation in Kitto's Biblical Encyclopædia; J. J. Conybeare's Bampton Lecture for 1824 on the Secondary Interpretation of Scripture; Dr. S. Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics (5-7); and an article in the North British Review for August 1855 on the Alexandrian school.

683.

These tendencies must be considered only to express the average. Thus the school of Antioch, of which Theodore of Mopsuestia is a type, leaned to the grammatical mode; (see some remarks on it in Neander's Church History, vol. iv. init. Germ. ed.; vol. iii. fin. Engl. Tr.) In the middle ages the Franciscans showed an inclination to the mystical or allegorical; and the typical system of the Miracle Plays and of the Biblia Pauperum illustrates the allegorical spirit of those times.

684.

The allegorical is seen in the school of Cocceius (1603-1669) in the Dutch church. The dogmatic has been alluded to above.

685.

The system is called variously, in works of Hermeneutics, συγκατάβασις, condescensio, demissio, obsequium. It is developed in Semler's Prolegomena to some of St. Paul's Epistles; in the Vorbereitung zur Theol. Hermeneutik, 1762; and in the Apparatus ad lib. Nov. Text. interpr. 1767. Tholuck quotes many instances of it in reference to him (ii. 61). Concerning the subject see Planck's Introduction to Sacred Philology, (E. T.) 152-168; Wegscheider, Inst. Theol. § 25; Bretschneider, Hist. Dogm. Auslegung des N. T. 1806. A list of foreign works in reference to it is given at the end of the article Accommodation, in Kitto's Biblical Encyclopædia. For a criticism on it see J. J. Conybeare's Bampton Lecture for 1824. (Lect. VII.)

686.

Mark x. 5.

687.

E.g. by Kidder in his Testimony of the Messias, 1694; Nicholls, Conference with a Theist, 1733; and by Sykes, in several works from about 1720-40.

688.

Dr. Pusey speaks (Inquiry, p. 139, n.) of two works by Semler on Demons, (of which I have seen only the second, 1779,) the first directed against the belief in the occurrence of possessions in the present day; the second to show that some of the Greek words descriptive of such phenomena in the New Testament need not necessarily imply superhuman agency.

689.

Because it seemed to involve the notion of dissimulation on the part of the scripture writers, or even of the divine Being.

690.

Introd. ad Doctr. Christianam, b. i. See Am. Saintes, p. 107.

691.

E.g. The Wolfenbüttel Fragments. See Am. Saintes, p. 86, and Niemeyer's Letzte Aeusserungen ueber religioese Gegenstaende zwei Tage vor seinem Tode, which he quotes.

692.

His doctrinal views are seen in the Lebens-beschreibung, part ii. p. 220, &c.

693.

Lessing (1729-1781). In 1754 he joined Nicholai and Mendelssohn in literary criticism; in 1757, in the Bibliothek der Schönen Wissenschaften; and in 1765, in the Allgem. Deutsche Biblioth. An account of his life and literary character may be seen in the Foreign Quarterly Review (No. 50) for 1840, and an able criticism on him by C. Dollfus in the Revue Germanique for 1860 (vol. ix.). Consult also Menzel's Deutsch. Litt. iii. 291, &c.; Metcalfe's work based on Vilmar, p. 400 seq. A separate study of his theological opinions was made by C. Schwartz in 1854, entitled Lessing als Theolog, especially c. iv.; see also Bartholmess, b. ii. ch. ii.

694.

Published in 1766.

695.

H. S. Reimarus (1694-1768). See Schlosser, ii. 26, &c., and the article Reimarus in the Conversations Lexicon.

696.

See Note 29 at the end of this volume.

697.

The Fragments are here named according to the order of their original publication; not that in which they are usually printed, as, e.g. in the Berlin edition, 1835.

698.

Compare Strauss's description of them in his Leben Jesu, Introd. § 5. Lessing's own object in their publication is expressed in the concluding pages of his edition of them.

699.

The chief opposition arose from Göze, a pastor of Hamburg, who attacked Lessing even before the last and most obnoxious fragment was published; but both Semler and Jerusalem also wrote against him. See Boden's Lessing und Göze, Ein Beitrag zur Lit. und Kirchengesch. des 18 Jahrh. 1862; also the references given at the end of Note 29 (p. 427); especially Hagenbach's Dogmengesch. § 275, note.

700.

See the note on p. 87.

701.

Die Erziehung des menschlichen Geschlechts, lately partially translated into English. It conveyed the thoughts suggested by the perusal of some apologies for religion.

702.

The theologians Steinbart and Teller represented a similar spirit.

703.

On Edelmann, who died 1767, see Kahnis, p. 126; and on Bahrdt (1741-92), Id. pp. 136-145; and Schlosser, ii. 211. The life of Bahrdt is a sad subject for study. Kahnis (p. 125 seq.) enumerates other deists, some of them earlier than those whom we are now considering, e.g. Knuzen, Dippel (1673-1734).

704.

See the reference above, p. 219.

705.

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

706.

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

707.

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

708.

i.e. from about 1790 to 1810.

709.

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

710.

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

711.

Kant lived 1724-1804. On his philosophy see Chalybaus, Hist. of Speculative Philosophy (translated 1854); Am. Saintes' Philos. de Kant, 1844; Cousin, Leçons de la Phil. de Kant, 1843. A good account of it also is given in Morell's Hist. of Philosophy, i. 233-63, in R. Vaughan's (sen.) Essays, and in a Lecture by Professor Mansel on the Philosophy of Kant, 1860. See also the references in Tennemann's Manual, § 387-94. In reference to its theological effects, see Am. Saintes' Critical History of Rationalism, ii. 5 and 6; Bartholmess, b. V. and vi. The parts of Kant's writings which are of special importance for ascertaining his theological views are, his work Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, 1793, and his criticism on natural theology in the Kritik der reinen Vernunft, b. ii. div. 3. See Strauss, Leben Jesu, introd. § 7. Staüdlin, Ammon, and Tieftrunk, were Kantist theologians.

712.

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

713.

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

714.

This appears in his Kritik der practischen Vernunft.

715.

Illuminism is used as the translation of Aufklaerungs-Zeit.

716.

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

717.

Such as Schleiermacher.

718.

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

719.

K. G. Bretschneider, 1776-1848; General Superintendent at Gotha. A short autobiography was published after his death, which is translated in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1852-3. His best work is the Handbuch der Dogmatik, 1814, 1838. He was the writer of the Probabilia concerning St. John's Gospel, named in Lect. VII.

720.

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

721.

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

722.

As Woolston, Bolingbroke, and Voltaire. Cfr. Strauss, Leb. Jes. Introd. § 5.

723.

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

724.

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

725.

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

726.

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

727.

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

728.

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

729.

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

730.

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

731.

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

732.

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

733.

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

734.

On Fichte see Chalybaüs, ch, vi. and vii.; Tennemann, Manual § 400-5; Morell, ii. p. 89-122; Lewes, History of Philosophy; Mansel's art. on Metaphysics in Encycl. Britan. p. 607. On Jacobi see Chalybaüs, ch. iii.; Tennemann, § 415; Morell, ii. 402; Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. xiii.

735.

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

736.

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

737.

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

738.

1770-1831. See Lect. VII.

739.

See some remarks on this point in Mr. Mansel's Lecture on the Philosophy of Kant.

740.

Lect. VII.

741.

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

742.

Herder, 1744-1803. See a previous note. His most interesting works were, the Spirit of Hebrew Poetry (translated 1802), and the Philosophy of History (translated 1800).

743.

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

744.

See Hundeshagen, Der Deutsch Prot. § 12; Kahnis, p. 223.

745.

This patriotism still lives in the poetry of Koerner.

746.

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

747.

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

748.

On this second period, see Schwarz's Geschichte der Neuesten Theologie, b. i.; and for brief notices of the whole of the German movement, see Hagenbach's Dogmengeschichte (period 5).

749.

It has been more recently, for this reason, called the Mediation-Theology (Vermittellungs-Theologie).

750.

Schleiermacher (1768-1834). His Leben in Briefen (1858) has been recently translated. His philosophical and religious stand-point is well discussed, and some portions of his works analysed, in the Rev. R. A. Vaughan's Essays and Remains (reprinted from the British Quarterly Review, No. 18). A brief explanation of his philosophy is seen in Morell's History of Philosophy, ii. 433, and Julius Scheller's Vorlesungen über Schleiermacher, 1844. His religious views are criticised, with extracts, in Amand Saintes, part ii. ch. xiv-xvi; Kahnis, 204 seq.; Lücke, Stud. und Krit. 1834, H. 4. The facts of his life are given in the Westm. Rev. for July, 1861.

751.

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

752.

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

753.

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

754.

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

755.

The Rationalist and Socinian element was taught by Wegscheider.

756.

In 1802.

757.

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

758.

He died in 1834.

759.

See note 31 (p. 428).

760.

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

761.

Cfr. Glaubenslehre, § 3-6.

762.

Selbst bewuszt-seyn.

763.

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

764.

§ 7-10; and also § 11-14.

765.

§ 129-131.

766.

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

767.

§ 68.

768.

§ 104.

769.

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

770.

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

771.

§ 170-172.

772.

The person of Christ is discussed § 93-99. Vaughan compares the view with that of Justin Martyr. See also Strauss's Leben Jesu, § 148.

773.

§ 121-125.

774.

See Note 24 (p. 421).

775.

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

776.

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

777.

Especially at Bonn, which was founded in 1818.

778.

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

779.

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

780.

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

781.

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

782.

Introduction to the Life of Christ, § 6.

783.

Preface to Church History (first edition).

784.

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

785.

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

786.

Lect. VII.

787.

Perhaps the clearest account of the controversy will be found in Michel Nicholas, Etudes Critiques sur la Bible, Essay i. 1862. See also Hengstenberg's Authentie des Pentateuches (Die Gottesnamen im Pentat. i. 181 seq.); Hävernick's Introd. to the Pentateuch (English translation), p. 56, &c.; Keil's Lehrbuch, p. 82, &c.; and Dr. S. Davidson's Introduction to the Old Testament (1862), pp. 1-135.

788.

Conjectures sur les Memoires Originaux du livre de la Genèse, 1753.

789.

See Exodus vi. 3.

790.

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

791.

Jehovah is translated in the English version, the Lord.

792.

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

793.

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

794.

There are two exceptions, viz. i. 21, xii. 9, which Hengstenberg considers to prove the rule. On this subject see Hengstenberg's Dissertation on Job in Kitto's Bibl. Cyclop. ii. 122, now reprinted in a volume of his Miscellaneous Essays.

795.

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

796.

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

797.

Geschichte des Hebr. Volk. i. 75 seq.

798.

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

799.

Tennyson's In Memoriam, § 95.

800.

Matt. v. 6.

801.

Rev. xix. 6

802.

Lect. VI. p. 218.

803.

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

804.

See p. 237.

805.

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

806.

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

807.

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

808.

See Note 24 (p. 412).

809.

Leben Jesu, 1835.

810.

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

811.

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

812.

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

813.

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

814.

On the spirit of Kant's philosophy in this respect, see Strauss's own remarks, Leben Jesu, Introd. § 7.

815.

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

816.

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

817.

Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 152. (ii. p. 713.)

818.

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

819.

§ 1-142.

820.

§ 17-43.

821.

§ 44-110.

822.

§ 111-142.

823.

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

824.

This idea is well brought out in Renan's critique on Strauss. (Etudes Relig. Essai iii.)

825.

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

826.

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

827.

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

828.

P. 241.

829.

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

830.

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

831.

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

832.

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

833.

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

834.

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

835.

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

836.

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

837.

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

838.

E.g. Th. Mommsen.

839.

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

840.

An explanation and criticism of some of these opinions are given in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament.

841.

Vermittellungs-Theologie, and sometimes called Deutsche Theologie. See Schwarz, book iii. ch. ii. The organs of this party are the Studien und Kritiken and the Neue Evangel. Kirchenzeitung.

842.

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

843.

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

844.

In the Einleitung.

845.

Id.

846.

Vol. i. period i. ch. i.

847.

Id. ch. ii. and iii.

848.

Epoche, Abth. 2.

849.

Vol. ii.

850.

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

851.

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

852.

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

853.

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

854.

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

855.

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

856.

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

857.

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

858.

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

859.

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

860.

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

861.

Die Innere Mission, founded by Dr. Wichern.

862.

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

863.

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

864.

It is enough to mention Schleiermacher's Glausbenslehre, and the works of Ewald; e.g. the prefaces to the poetical and prophetical books, and his work, the Geschichte des Hebr. Volkes.

865.

In Lecture V. (p. 194.)

866.

See Damiron, Essai sur l'Histoire de la Philosophie en France au 19me siècle, 1828; and Nettement's Hist. de la Litt. Franc. sous la Restoration, 1853, and Hist. de la Litt. Franc. sous le Gouvernement de Juillet, especially b. v, vi, vii, xi; and a review of Nettement in the British Quarterly Review, No. 37; also H. J. Rose's Christian Advocate's Publication for 1832.

867.

See Morell's Hist. of Philosophy, i. 543-72, and Damiron, pp. (1-105).

868.

Chateaubriand (1768-1848) wrote his Génie du Christianisme in 1802. See Nettement, first work, quoted above, vol. i. b. x.; and, second work, vol. ii. p. 330; and the criticism by Villemain, La Tribune Moderne, ch. v.; and Sainte-Beuve's Portraits, vol. x.

869.

In his Génie du Christianisme.

870.

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

871.

1760-1825. See Morell, as above.

872.

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

873.

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

874.

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

875.

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

876.

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

877.

Comte's chief work, the Philosophie Positive, has been well translated in an abridged form by Miss Martineau, 1853. In reference to him see Morell, History of Philosophy, i. 577, &c. and important criticisms on his system in the following reviews, Revue des Deux Mondes, by E. Saisset, 1850, vol. iii; North British Review, No. 30, Aug. 1851; No. 41, May 1854; British Quarterly Review, No. 38, April 1854. Comte's later religious views are given in the Catéchisme Positiviste, 1852, and the Culte Systématique de l'Humanité ou Calendrier Positiviste (1853).