On the subject of the words explained in this note see, besides the works referred to, Walch's Bibl. Theol. Select. i. ch. v. sect. 5, 6, 7, 11, and iii. ch. vii. sect. 10. 4. 1757: Pfaff's Introd. in Hist. Theol. lib. ii. b. iii. 2. 1725: Stapfer's Inst. Theol. Polem. ii. ch. vi, vii, x; iv. ch. xiii. 1744: Reimannus' Hist. Univ. Ath. sectio i. 1725: J. F. Buddeus's De Atheismo, 1737, ch. i. and ii: J. F. Buddeus's Isagoge, 1730, pp. 1203-1211: Lechler's Gesch. des Deismus, 1841; Schlussbemerkungen, p. 453 seq.: J. Fabricius, 1704, Consid. Var. Controv. p. 1: Stauedlin's Gesch. des Skepticismus vorzueglich in Ruecksicht auf. Moral. und Religion. 1794: J. F. Tafel's Gesch. und Kritik des Skepticismus und Irrationalismus, with reference to Philosophy, 1834.
Note 22. p. 136. Woolston's Discourses On Miracles.
In addition to the notice of these Discourses given in the text, it may be well to give a brief account of their contents.
In Discourse I. Woolston aims at showing (α) that healing is not a proper miracle for a Messiah to perform, and that the fathers of the church understood the miracles allegorically: (β) that a literal interpretation of miracles involves incredibility, as shown in the miracle of the expulsion of the buyers and sellers from the temple, the casting out devils from the possessed man of the tombs, the transfiguration, the marriage of Cana, the feeding the multitudes: (γ) the meaning of Jesus when he appeals to miracles. In Discourse II. he selects for examination the miracle of the woman with the issue of blood, and also her with the spirit of infirmity; also the narrative of the Samaritan woman, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the temptation, the appearance of the spirits of the dead at the resurrection. In Discourse III. he selects the cursing of the fig-tree, and the miracle of the pool of Bethesda. It may be allowable to give one illustration of the coarse humour with which he rationalizes the sacred narrative in his explanation of this last miracle. He says of the healed man, "The man's infirmity was more laziness than lameness; and Jesus only shamed him out of his pretended idleness by bidding him to take up his stool and walk off, and not lie any longer like a lubbard and dissemble among the diseased." It will be perceived, that if the coarseness be omitted, the system of interpretation is the naturalist system afterwards adopted by the old rationalism (rationalismus vulgaris). In Discourse IV. he selects the healing with eye-salve of the blind man, the water made into wine at Cana; where he introduces a Jewish rabbi to utter blasphemy, after the manner of Celsus; and the healing of the paralytic who was let down through the roof, which, as being one of the most characteristic passages of Woolston, Dean Trench has selected for analysis. (Notes on Miracles, Introduction, p. 81.) In Discourse V. he discusses the three miracles of the raising of the dead; and in Discourse VI. the miracle of Christ's own resurrection.
His conclusion (in Disc. I.) is, that "the history of Jesus, as recorded in the evangelists, is an emblematical representation of his spiritual life in the soul of man; and his miracles figurative of his mysterious operations;" that the four Gospels are in no part a literal story, but a system of mystical philosophy or theology.
Note 23. p. 178. The Literary Coteries Of Paris In The Eighteenth Century.
An account of these coteries may be seen in Schlosser's Hist. of Eighteenth Century, (E. T.) vol. i. ch. ii. 4; the particulars of which chapter he has gathered largely from the Autobiography of Marmontel, and from Grimm's Correspondence. See also Sainte-Beuve's Papers (Portraits, vol. ii.) on Espinasse and Geoffrin. These coteries were specially four: viz. (1) that of Madame De Tencin, mother of D'Alembert, which included Fontenelle, Montesquieu, Mairan, Helvetius, Marivaux, and Astruc; (2) of Madame Geoffrin, who took the place of De Tencin. It included, besides some of the above, Poniatowsky, Frederick the Great when in France, the Swedish Creutz, and Kaunitz, the whole of the Voltaire school, and at first Rousseau; (3) of Madame Du Deffant, contemporary with Geoffrin. This was less a coterie of fashion, and more entirely of intellect; and included Voltaire, D'Alembert, Henault, and Horace Walpole when in Paris. Later Mlle. Espinasse took the place of Deffant, and this became the union-point for all the philosophical reformers, D'Alembert, Diderot, Turgot, and the Encyclopaedists; (4) of D'Holbach, consisting of the most advanced infidels.
Note 24. p. 198. The Term Ideology.
As the term Ideology has lately been employed in a novel theological sense, (e.g. Essays and Reviews, Ess. iv.), and as it is employed in these lectures in its ordinary sense, as known in metaphysical science, it may prevent ambiguity to state briefly the history of the term.
The word Ideology, as denoting the term to express metaphysical science, seems to have arisen in the French school of De Tracy at the close of the last century. Cfr. Krug's Philos. Lexicon, sub voc.
As early as Plato's time metaphysics was the science of ἰδέαι, i.e. of forms; but the word ἰδέα implied the objective form in the thing, not the subjective conception in the mind. It was Descartes who first appropriated the word Idea in the subjective sense of notion. This arose from the circumstance that in his philosophy he sought for the idea in the mind, instead of the essence in the thing contemplated, as had been the case in mediaeval philosophy. In the following century Locke's inquiries, together with Berkeley's speculations, caused metaphysics to become the science of ideas. The representative theory of perception which was held, increased, if it did not cause, the confusion: all knowledge was restricted to ideas. The subsequent attempts of Condillac and others to carry forward the analysis of the formation of our ideas still farther, caused metaphysics to be restricted to them alone. This apparently was the reason why De Tracy gave the name of Ideology to the science of metaphysics in the Elemens d'Ideologie.(1066)
It was the sceptical notion of the unreality of the objects as distinct from the ideas, partly the offshoot of a sensational philosophy, like that of De Tracy, partly of the spiritual philosophy of Germany, which farther caused the term Ideological to slide into the sense of ideal; a meaning of the term which the employment of it in English in recent theological controversy seems likely to make common.
Note 25. p. 195. The Works Of Dr. Geddes.
Towards the end of the eighteenth century, free thought began to manifest itself in England under a rationalistic form, in a Roman catholic, Dr. Geddes, who lived 1737-1802. (See Life by Mason Good, 1804.) Vol. i. of his Translation of the Bible appeared in 1792; vol. ii. in 1797; and his Critical Remarks (vol. i.) in 1800. His free criticism is seen in discussing the character of Moses (pref. to vol. i. of Transl.); the slaughter of the Canaanites (pref. to vol. ii.); Paradise (Crit. Rem. p. 35); the remarks on Genesis xlix. (Id. p. 142); on the Egyptian plagues (p. 182); on the passage of the Red sea (p. 200). As soon as the first volume was published the Catholic bishops silenced him. Geddes was a believer in Christianity; but felt so strongly the deist difficulties, that he sought to defend revelation by explaining away the supernatural from the Jewish history, and inspiration from the Jewish literature. His views, so far as they were not original, were probably derived from the incipient rationalistic speculations of Germany, though he quoted almost none of the German except Michaelis and Herder. His position in the history of doubt is with the early rationalists, not with the deists. A writer of somewhat similar character, Mr. Evanson, a unitarian, wrote a critical attack on the Gospels, The Dissonance of the Four generally received Evangelists, in 1805.
Note 26. p. 196. The Works Of Conyers Middleton.
Dr. Conyers Middleton lived from 1683 to 1750. In 1749 he published A Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers of the Early Church; "by which it is shown that we have no sufficient reason to believe, upon the authority of the primitive fathers, that any such powers were continued to the church after the days of the apostles." He was attacked by Dodwell, Church, and Chapman, who described the work as discrediting miracles. The object of it was to place the church in the predicament of denying altogether the authority of the fathers, or else of admitting the truth of the Romish doctrine of miracles. Gibbon, when young, chose the latter horn of the dilemma. A list of Middleton's works in chronological order will be found in vol. i. of his Miscellaneous Works (1752). The one which created disputes in theology besides the above was, An Anonymous Letter to Waterland, 1731, in reference to his reply to Tindal's work; which was answered by Bishop Pearce. His posthumous work on The Variations or Inconsistencies which are found among the Four Evangelists, (Works, vol. ii. p. 22); his essay on The Allegorical Interpretation of the Creation and Fall (ii. 122); and his criticism in 1750 on bishop Sherlock's Discourses on Prophecy, may cause Middleton to be regarded as a rationalist. See his Works, ii. 24, 131, and iii. 183.
Note 27. p. 213. On Pietism In Germany In The Seventeenth Century.
The person who commenced the religious movement afterwards called Pietism, was John Arndt (1555-1621), who wrote The True Christian, a work as useful religiously, as Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, or Doddridge's Religion in the Soul.
Spener followed (1635-1705). The private religious meetings which he established about 1675, Collegia Pietatis, were the origin of the application of the name Pietism to the movement. One of his pupils was the saintly A. H. Francke, whose memoir was translated 1837. Paul Gerhardt, the well known author of the German hymns, also belonged to the same party. The university of Halle became the home of Pietism; and the orphan-house established in that town was renowned over Europe. The opposition of the old Lutheran party of other parts of Germany produced controversies which continued till about 1720; for an account of which, see Weismann, Mem. Eccl. Hist. Sacr. 1745, p. 1018 seq.
Pietism propagated its influence by means of Bengel in Wuertemburg and the university of Tuebingen, and in Moravia through Zinzendorf. Arnold and Thomasius belonged to this party at the beginning of the eighteenth century. OEtinger at Tuebingen, Crusius at Leipsic, and, to a certain extent, Buddeus also, partook of the spirit of Pietism. It manifested a tendency to religious isolation; and in its nature combined the analogous movements subsequently carried out in England by Wesley and by Simeon respectively.
A brief account of it is given in Hase's Church History, 409: and for a fuller account, see Schroeckh, Chr. Kirchengesch. vol. viii. pp. 255-91; Pusey on German Theology, part i. (67-113); part. ii. ch. x; Amand Saintes, Crit. Hist. of Rationalism, E. T. ch. vii. Spener's character and life may be seen in Canstein's memoir of him; and in Weismann, pp. 966-72. A philosophical view of Pietism, as a necessary stage in the development of German religious life, is given by Dorner in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840, part ii. 137, Ueber den Pietismus. Kahnis, who himself quotes it, (Hist. of Germ. Prot.) E. T. p. 102, regards Pietism as ministering indirectly to rationalism; much in the same way as bishop Fitzgerald criticised the similar evangelical movement of England, Aids to Faith, p. 49, &c.
Note 28. p. 224. Classification Of Schools Of Poetry In Germany.
The materials for understanding the awakening of literary tastes in the last century in Germany, through Lessing's influence, are furnished by Schlosser, History of the Eighteenth Century. See vol. i. ch. iii. E. T. for the period from the Pietists to Lessing; and ch. v. in reference to the Deutsche Bibliothek, and also vol. ii. ch. ii. 3. See also Vilmar's History of German Literature (translated and abridged by Metcalfe).
It may facilitate clearness to name the classification of schools of German poetry and taste, which is given in the last-named work. They are divided into five classes: viz. I. that which was antecedent to Lessing, which is subdivided into (1) the Saxon school of Gottsched; and (2) the Swiss school of Bodmer, and of Wieland in his early manner; which was connected with the Gottingen school of Haller, Hagedorn, and Klopstock, together with the Stolbergs and Voss. II. Lessing, and writers influenced by him, such as (1) Kleist and the Prussian group; (2) Wieland in his second manner, and J. Paul Richter; (3) Kotzebue, who was a mixture of Wieland and Lessing. In these two periods Klopstock, Wieland, and Lessing, were the intellectual triumvirs. III. The "Sturm und Drang" period; the Weimar school with its second literary triumvirate, Herder, Goethe, Schiller. IV. The later schools: (1) the romantic, viz. the two Schlegels, Novalis, Tieck, Uhland, Fouque; (2) the patriotic of the liberation wars, Arndt and Koerner. V. The modern school of disappointment and uneasy reaction against the absolute government, H. Heine and Gruen.
It is an interesting psychological problem to trace the close analogy between the schools of poetical taste and the corresponding character in the contemporary criticism of ancient literature, the speculative philosophy, and the theology.
Note 29. p. 225. The Wolfenbuettel Fragments.
It has been stated in the text that these were Fragments, which Lessing published in 1774 and the following years, of a larger work which he professed to have found in the library of Wolfenbuettel, where he was librarian. They were published in the third of the series of works, Beitraege zur Geschichte und Literatur aus den Schaetzen der Herzoglichen Bibliothekzu Wolfenbuettel, under the title, Fragmente Eines Ungenannten Herausgegeben von G. E. Lessing.
After Lessing's death, C. A. E. Schmidt published further Fragments, under the title Uebrige noch Ungedruckte Werke des Wolfenbuettelschen Fragmentisten. Ein Nachlass von G. E. Lessing.
The authorship of the Fragments was suspected at the time by Hamann; but it remained generally unknown, and became as great a secret as the authorship of the Letters of Junius, until 1827, when the question was discussed by Gurlitt in the Leipziger Literatur-Zeitung, No. 55, and proof was offered that the author was Reimarus of Hamburg.
The result of this and subsequent investigations is as follows. The original work of Reimarus, from which the Fragments were taken, remains in MS. in the public library of Hamburg. It was entitled Apologie oder Schutz-Schrift fuer die vernuenftigen Verehrer Gottes. When written, it was shown only to intimate friends. Lessing was allowed to take a copy, and showed the MS. to Mendelssohn in 1771. Lessing wished to publish it entire; but the censorship would not give the imprimatur. Consequently it came out in fragments among the series of contributions from the Wolfenbuettel library, which were free from the censorship. The pretended discovery of them in the library was a mere excuse; and there is proof in Lessing's remains that he admitted the fact. See the statement of these facts in Lessing's Leben, by Guhrauer, (of which, vol. i. is by Danzel; vol. ii. by Guhrauer,) vol. ii. b. iii. ch. iv. p. 133, note 3, and b. iv. p. 141.(1067)
Several writers, subsequently to Gurlitt's examination of the question of authorship, have written, either on the question of the authorship of the Fragments, or on the contents of the larger work from which they are selections. In the Zeitschrift fuer die Historische Theologie for 1839, part iv. is an article composed from W. Koerte's life of Thaer, in reference to the former question. Also Dr. W. Klose examined the original MS. in the Hamburg library, and published an account of it, with considerable extracts, in several of the numbers of the same journal, Niedner's Zeitschrift, 1850, (part iv; 1851, part iv; 1852, part iii.) It is in the preface (Vorbericht) to the first of these parts that the account of Reimarus's own mental history is given, to which allusion was made in the text of Lecture VI. (p. 225.)
During the last year the question has been made the subject of a monograph by the celebrated Strauss. He had heard of the existence of a copy of the original MS. in private hands at Hamburg, and proceeded to collate it with the view of publication. He found it to differ in some respects from the Fragments published by Lessing and Schmidt. He did not consider the hitherto unpublished parts of the work sufficiently important, either in a literary or historical point of view, to merit publication in extenso; but contented himself with stating the results of his study of it in a small work, H. S. Reimarus und seine Schutz-Schrift, &c. 1861. It contains a brief account of the literary question of the Fragments, and of Reimarus's life and stand-point; also an analysis of the unpublished parts of the work, written with the clearness which characterises all Strauss's didactic works. It would appear from the analysis that the pieces printed by Lessing were not only some of the ablest, but some of the least offensive of the whole work. The concluding pages contain some very interesting remarks, in which Strauss contrasts the criticism of the eighteenth century with that of the present day; the characteristics of the former being, that it charges imposture on the scripture writers; that of the latter, that it admits their honesty, but explains away their statements and opinions by reference to psychological and historical phenomena.
In addition to the sources given above, information is contained in the following works: Schroeckh's Christ Kirchengesch. vi. 275; Schlosser's History of the Eighteenth Century, E. T. vol. ii. 266 seq.; Hagenbach's Dogmengeschichte, 275 notes, (where reference is made to Guhrauer's Bodin's Heptaplomeres, 1841, p. 257 seq.); Conversations-Lexicon, art. Reimarus; Amand Saintes' History of Rationalism, E. T. p. 84; Kahnis, Id. p. 145 seq.; K. Schwarz, Lessing als Theolog, of which ch. iv. is on the Fragmenten-streit; Strauss's Kleine Schriften, 1861; Lessing's Werke, xii. 508. (ed. Lachmann.)
Note 30. p. 242. Schleiermacher's Early Studies.
It may be interesting to trace more fully the parallel noticed in the text between the development of Plato's thoughts and Schleiermacher's early studies.
Though it is impossible to arrange the dialogues of Plato in the chronological order in which they were composed, so as to be able to study the master in his successive styles, yet several systems of arrangement, founded on different principles, seem to coincide so far as to render it probable that Plato's great theory of ideas or forms grew upon him through these stages: viz. (1) it was viewed as a fact of mind, an innate conception of forms (e.g. in Meno); (2) as useful in guiding perplexed minds to truth, and sifting philosophical doctrines by means of the dialectical process, e.g. in the Theaetetus and Parmenides; (3) as representing an objective reality, a true cause in nature external to the mind, as well as an hypothesis in science (e.g. in the Republic); (4) as having a mystical connexion with divinity, and furnishing a cosmogony, Whether this passage, from the subjective conception to the objective reality, be really or only logically the order of development in Plato's ideal theory, it is clear that the growth of Schleiermacher's mind admits of comparison with this supposed order of development in Plato; though there is a slight variation in the steps of the process. Schleiermacher went through three stages, (1) the philosophy of Jacobi, (2) of Fichte, and probably (3) of Schelling; from which he learned respectively, (1) to have faith in our intuitions, (2) to construe the outward by the inward, (3) to believe in the power of the mind to pass beyond the inward, and apprehend absolute truth. If the resemblance to the above account of Plato were exactly perfect, the love of a philosophy like Fichte's ought to have preceded that of Jacobi. Schelling's influence, it ought to be noted, is very slight on Schleiermacher, compared with that of the others. The traces of it which appear are perhaps resolvable into a similarity to Jacobi's system.
Note 31. p. 244. Schleiermacher's Theological Works.
The theological works of Schleiermacher are doctrinal, critical, and pastoral. The latter consist chiefly of the sermons which he delivered in Berlin. The critical works are mentioned in a footnote to p. 248; but it may be useful to give a brief notice of his doctrinal works, of which some are referred to in the text.
The earliest was the Reden ueber die Religion an die Gebildeten unter ihren Veraechtern, 1799, (Discourses on Religion addressed to the educated among its despisers,) which ought not to be read in earlier editions than the fourth (1829), the notes of which contain explanations. The object of these discourses was to direct attention away from the study of religion in its outward manifestations, to its inward essence; which he showed to lie neither in knowledge nor in action, but in feeling. See especially Discourse II. Uber das Wesen der Religion. For the effect which the discourses created, see Neanders testimony, quoted by Kahnis, Hist. of Prot. E. T. p. 208.
The works which succeeded the Reden were the following: in 1800, the Monologen (Soliloquies); in 1803, Grundlinien einer Kritik der bisherigen Sittenlehre (Critique on previous Ethical teaching); in 1806, Die Weinachtsfeier (Christmas Eve); in 1811, the Kurze Darstellung des Theologischen Studiums (Plan of Theological Study;—lately translated), which gave rise to the branch now common in German universities, called Theologische Encyclopaedie;(1068) in 1821, Der Christliche Glaube nach den Grundsaetzen der Evangelischen Kirche (the Christian Faith on the principles of the Evangelical Church), which was improved in the subsequent editions.
As the Reden breathed the spirit of Jacobi, the Monologen breathed that of Fichte. They study the ethical, as the former the religious side of man; the action of the personal will as distinct from the feelings of dependence. The dialogue of the Weihnachtsfeier showed Christ as the means of effecting that oneness with the absolute which the two former works had shown to be necessary.
In the Glaubens-lehre, Schleiermacher gives a general view of dogmatic theology, viewed from the psychological side, i.e. its appropriation by the Christian consciousness. He studies (1) man's consciousness of God, prior to experience of the opposition of sin and grace; next, after being aware of such an opposition, as (2) the subject of sin, and (3) the subject of grace; or, in theological language, the states of innocence, of sin, and of grace. Each of these is subdivided in spirit, even when not in form, in a threefold manner; describing respectively the condition of man, the attributes of God, and the constitution of the world, as they relate to the above three named states. The subjective and psychological character of the inquiry is seen in the fact, that when treating the second of these subdivisions,—the Divine attributes,—he does not study them as peculiarities of God's nature, but as modifications of the mode in which we refer to God our own feeling of dependence. This subjective tendency illustrates the influence of Fichte and Jacobi on Schleiemiacher.
The contrast is an interesting one between a dogmatic treatise of the schoolmen, of the reformers, and of Schleiermacher. The first commences with the Deity and his attributes, and passes to man: the second generally begins with the rule of faith, the Bible; and then, passing to the Deity, proceeds mainly after the scholastic fashion: the third begins and ends with the human consciousness, and its contents.
Note 32. p. 252. On Some German Critical Theologians. (de Wette, Ewald, Etc.)
Some of the theologians of the critical school which is described in the text, deserve a more full notice than was possible in the foot-notes to the Lecture.
De Wette (1780-1849) was educated at Jena, under Griesbach. He was made Professor at Berlin in 1810, but was deprived in 1819, in consequence of the Prussian government having opened a letter of condolence written by him to the mother of Sand, the assassin of the dramatist Kotzebue. (For the history of the excited state of the German students at this time, see K. Raumer's Paedagogik, vol. iv. translated.) In 1826 he was made Professor at Basle. An interesting life of him is given in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1850. His most important works are, his Einleitung ins Alt. und Neu. Test.; Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, 1819; his New Translation of the Bible (1839); and Commentaries on several parts of Scripture. On his doctrinal views see Kahnis, p. 231 seq. He is said to have been a man of sweet and amiable character; and indeed he appears to be so in his writings. It has been remarked, as a proof of his singular fairness, that he not only candidly states the opinions of an opponent, but even sometimes confesses his inability fully to refute them.
Along with De Wette ought to be classed a great number of distinguished men, most of whom wrote parts of the Commentary which he designed under the name of Exegetisches Handbuch. They were mostly critics rather than writers on doctrine, and represent the modified state of thought of his later life; but still maintain, for the most part, his critical stand-point in reference to the scriptures; and therefore, though contemporary with the new Tuebingen and other schools described in Lecture VII, which have arisen since Strauss's criticism, in that which we called the third period of our sketch, they really belong to the school of critics of the older or second period. Such are, or were, Gesenius, Knobel, Hirzel, Hitzig, Credner, Tuch, E. Meier, Hupfeld, and Stuehelin. See Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. xi.
H. Ewald, born 1803, became Professor at Goettingen 1831. In 1837 he was one of the seven professors who sacrificed their position when the new king of Hanover, Ernest, interfered with the constitution. From 1838 to 1848 he was professor at Tuebingen: since 1848 at Goettingen. His works are partly on the oriental languages, and partly on theology. Among the latter the chief are, Die Poetischen Buecher des Alten Test., 1835; Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, 1840; and the Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1842-50; a work which, whatever may be thought of the theological aspects of it, if regarded in respect of scholarship, poetic appreciation, and grandeur of generalization, is one of the most remarkable books ever produced even in Germany. (Renan has based upon it the most brilliant of his essays, ess. ii. in the Etudes d'Hist. Religieuse.) His works on the New Testament are partly directed against the views of the new Tuebingen school. He differs from the older critical school of De Wette, in applying himself more exclusively to the Semitic literature; and cannot be classed with them in any other way than that he represents the effort of independent criticism, linguistic and historic; removed from the dogmatic school, and also from the later forms of critical.
Note 33. p. 255. The Name Jehovah.
The name יהוה is written Jehovah, by transferring to it the vowel points of the word Adonai, אדני, which the pious scruples of the Jews led them to substitute for it. It was probably read Yahveh. In reference to the meaning of El, and Jehovah, see Gesenius's Lexicon on the words אל (p. 45. Engl. Transl.), and יהוה (p. 337); also the word hajah, היה, (p. 221.) See likewise Hengstenberg's Authentie. des Pentateuches, i. 222 seq.; especially p. 230, where he shows that jahveh, יהוה, is derived by regular analogy from the future of the verb hajah, היה ( = havah, היה). See also M. Nicholas's Etudes Crit. sur la Bible, pp. 115, 163; and the article Jehovah in Smith's Biblical Dictionary.
Note 34. p. 256. The Use Of The Names Of Deity In The Composition Of Hebrew Proper Names.
A curious list of these is given by Dr. Donaldson. (Christian Orthodoxy, pp. 235, 6.)
Examples of names before the age of Saul, compounded with El, are seen in El-kanah, El-i, Samu-el, Abi-el. When Saul reigns we find the name Jah or Jehovah appear, in Jeho-nathan, Ahi-jah, Jedid-iah; and during the regal period in the list of kings, Jos-iah, Jeho-abaz, Jeho-i-akim, Zedek-iah; and among the prophets, Isa-iah, Jerem-iah, Mica-iah, Jeho-sheah. After the fall of Judah we find the name El reappear; e.g. Ezeki-el ( = Hezek-iah), Dani-el, Micha-el, Gabri-el, El-iashib, Shealti-el. After the captivity the name Jah recurs; e.g. Nehem-iah, Zephan-iah, Zechar-iah, Malach-iah. The name El-i-jah ( = my God is Jah) is an instance of a word compounded with both names.
Donaldson tries to generalize from the above to the effect, that, previously to the age of the early kings, proper names compounded with El were prevalent; and in the regal and prophetic age, those compounded with Jah; again, after the fall of Judah, and in the captivity, those with El; and after the captivity, with Jah. But the selection is too limited to admit of such a generalization being satisfactory. It does however prove the knowledge of the twofold conception implied by the use of the names.
Note 35. p. 264. The Hegelian Philosophy.
The purpose of this note is to supply references to sources for the study of Hegel's philosophy; and also to point out the parallel and contrast in the central thought and tendency of the philosophies of Schelling and Hegel.
The most intelligible account of Hegel's system is given by Morell, History of Philosophy, ii. 161-196; and the best general view of its tendencies, especially in reference to theology, is contained in an instructive article by E. Scherer, in the Rev. des Deux Mondes for Feb. 15, 1861, from which assistance has been derived in this lecture. The student will also find great help in Chalybaues's Hist. of Spec. Philos. ch. xi-xvii (translated 1854); and A. Vera's Introduction a la Phil. de Hegel, 1855; together with his French translation of Hegel's Logic. (Vera is one of the few Italians who understand Hegel.) The Philosophie der Geschichte, and Geschichte der Philosophie are the two most intelligible of Hegel's works; the former of which is translated into English; but the study of his Logic is indispensable, for seeing the applications of his method, as well as for appreciating his metaphysical ability and real position.
Schelling and Hegel both seek to solve the problems of philosophy, by starting a priori with the idea of the absolute; but in Schelling's case it is perceived by a presentative power (intellectual intuition), and in Hegel's by a representative. The former faculty perceives the absolute object; the latter the absolute relation, if such a term be not a contradiction. In each case the percipient power is supposed to be "above consciousness;" i.e. not trammelled by those limitations of object and subject which are the conditions of ordinary consciousness. In both systems a kind of threefold process is depicted, as the law or movement according to which the absolute manifests itself.(1069) Sir W. Hamilton has shown the inconsistencies of Schelling's system, in criticising that of Cousin, who was his great exponent; see Dissertations, ess. i. (reprinted from the Edinburgh Review, 1829); and Mr. Mansel has extended a similar analysis to Fichte and Hegel. (Bampton Lectures, ii. and iii; and article Metaphysic in Encyclop. Britann. 10th ed. p. 607, &c. See also Remusat De la Philosophie Allemande, Introduction.) Yet a grand thought, even though, psychologically speaking, it be an unreal one, lies beneath the awkward terminology of the systems of Schelling and Hegel; and their method has influenced many who do not consciously embrace their philosophy. The effect produced by Schelling is the desire to seize the prime idea, the beau ideal of any subject, and trace its manifestations in the field of history; a method which is seen in the French historic and critical literature of the followers of Cousin in the reign of Louis Philippe. (See Note 9, and the references given in Note 44.) The spirit produced by Hegel, is the desire to realise the truth contained in opposite views of the same subject; to view each as a half truth, and error itself as a part of the struggle toward truth. This spirit and method are seen in such a writer as Renan, and is clearly described in the passages quoted from Scherer and others in Note 9.
Note 36. p. 271. The Christology Of Strauss.
The following extract from Strauss's work conveys his Christology.
"This is the key to the whole of Christology, that, as subject of the predicate which the church assigns to Christ, we place instead of an individual, an idea; but an idea which has an existence in reality, not in the mind only, like that of Kant. In an individual, a God-man, the properties and functions which the church ascribes to Christ contradict themselves; in the idea of the race they perfectly agree. Humanity is the union of the two natures;—God become man; the infinite manifesting itself in the finite, and the finite spirit remembering its infinitude: it is the child of the visible mother and the invisible father, Nature and Spirit: it is the worker of miracles, in so far as in the course of human history the spirit more and more completely subjugates nature, both within and around man, until it lies before him as the inert matter on which he exercises his active power: it is the sinless existence, for the course of its development is a blameless one, pollution cleaves to the individual only, and does not touch the race or its history. It is Humanity that dies, rises, and ascends to heaven; for, from the negation of its phenomenal life, there ever proceeds a higher spiritual life; from the suppression of its mortality as a personal, rational, and terrestrial spirit, arises its union with the infinite spirit of the heavens. By faith in this Christ, especially in his death and resurrection, man is justified before God; that is, by the kindling within him of the idea of humanity, the individual man participates in the divinely human life of the species. Now the main element of that idea is, that the negation of the merely natural and sensual life, which is itself the negation of the spirit, is the sole way to true spiritual life. This alone is the absolute sense of Christology. That it is annexed to the person and history of one individual is a necessary result of the historical form which Christology has taken." Leben Jesu, vol. ii. 151. (pp. 709, 10. 4th ed. 1840); in the English translation, vol. iii. p. 433.
Note 37. p. 278. Strauss.
A few facts concerning the life and writings of Strauss may be interesting.
He was born in 1808, and was educated at Tuebingen and Berlin. He was Repetiteur at Tuebingen in 1835, when he published his Leben Jesu, described in the text of Lect. VII. In 1837 he published his Streit-schriften, or replies to his critics. In 1839 he was elected Professor of theology at Zurich, an appointment which produced such popular indignation that it was cancelled, and a change of government was caused by it. In 1840 he published Die Christliche Glaubenslehre im Kampfe mil der modernen Wissenschaft dargestellt; in which, after an introduction concerning the history of opinions on the relation of the two, he discussed the principles of Christian doctrine, such as the Bible, Canon, Evidences, &c. and next the doctrines themselves; viz. (part i.) on the divine Being and His attributes, as an abstract conception; (part ii.) on the same, as the object of empirical conceptions in its manifestation in creation, &c. See Foreign Quart. Rev. No. 54. 1841; and C. Schwarz's Gesch. der n. Theol. b. ii. ch. i. He published also Monologen in dem Freihafen, translated 1848; Soliloquies on the Christian Religion, its Errors, and Everlasting Truth.
In 1848, the revolutionary year, he was elected to the Wurtemburg Parliament; and took the conservative side, to the surprise of his constituents. He has subsequently lived chiefly at Heilbronn, engaged in literary labours; mostly writing the lives of sceptics, or persons connected with free thought whose fate has been like his own. Among these have been, a sketch of Julian, 1847, intended probably as a satire on the romantic reaction conducted by the late king of Prussia; a Life of Schubart, 1849, a Swabian poet of the last century; one of Maerklin 1851, his own early friend; one of N. Frischlin, 1856, a learned German of the sixteenth century; a life of Ulric von Huetten, 1858; and Gespraeche von Huetten, 1861; also Kleine Schriften, 1861; and a work on Reimarus, 1862, concerning which see Note 29. Some of these works are reviewed in the Nat. Rev. Nos. 7 and 12.
Note 38. p. 273. The Replies To Strauss.
Schwarz gives an interesting account of the various replies to Strauss, and of the works written by various theologians to support their own point of view against his criticisms. Gesch. der n. Theol. p. 113 seq.
The work was criticised,—
I. From the old school of orthodoxy, (α) by Steudel, Strauss's own teacher, in a work called Vorlauefig zu Beherzigenden zur Beruhigung der Gemuethen. (β) From the new orthodoxy, by Hengstenberg, in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung. (γ) From the school which formed the transition between this and that of Schleiermacher by Tholuck;, in Glaubwuerdigkeit der Evangelischen Geschichte, 1837.
II. From the school of Schleiermacher, (α) in Neander's Leben Jesu, (β) in Ullmann's Studien und Kritiken, 1836. part iii. Reprinted as Historisch oder Mythisch.
III. By the Hegelians; 1. from the "right" of the party (using the illustration drawn from the distribution of political parties in the foreign parliaments), (α) by Goeschel in the work Von Gott, dem Menschen und dem GottesMenschen, 1838; (β) by Dorner in the Geschichte der Person Christi, 1839. (γ) by Gabler and Bruno Bauer, who at that time was on the side of orthodoxy: 2. from the Hegelian "centre" in Schaller's Der Historischer Christus und die Philosophie, 1838; 3. from the "left," (α) by Weisse, Die Evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, 1838: (β) by Wilke, Der Ur-evangelist; both of whom regard St. Mark's as the primitive evangile; and (γ) by Bruno Bauer, Kritik der Synoptiker, 1842, when he had changed to the opposite side of the Hegelian school: (δ) by Luetzelberger; (ε) by A. Schweizer; both of whom wrote on St. John's Gospel. Several of the latter were not intended to be replies to Strauss, but attempts to reconsider their own position in relation to him. This was particularly the case in reference to the works which were written by the Tuebingen school, (see next note,) of which Schwarz gives a description, p. 153 seq.
Note 39. p. 278. The Tubingen School.
The leader of the historico-critical school which bears this name, was C. Baur (1792-1860), author of various works on the history of doctrine, and on church history both doctrinal and critical. His work against the Roman catholic theologian Moehler, which first made him noted, was Gegensatz des Protestantismus und Katholicismus nach den principien und Haupt-dogmen der beiden Lehrbegriffe, 1833. An account of his works is given in C. Schwarz's Gesch. der neuest. Theol. p. 165. The following may be here specified: his work on the history of the doctrine of the atonement, Die Lehre von der Versoehnung, 1838; also Lehrbuch der Christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 1845, and Die Christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1853; the last part of which has been published since his death. Some interesting remarks, comparing him with Strauss and Schleiermacher, (though hardly fair to the last,) appeared in the National Rev. Jan, 1861. See also the sketch by Nefftzer in the Revue Germanique, vol. xiii. parts 1 and 2.
The other members of the school besides Baur have been Schwegler, the commentator on Aristotle's Metaphysics, and author of a Roman History (died 1857); Zeller, also a writer on Greek philosophy, now Professor of philosophy at Marburg; whose appointment to Berne in 1847 has been elsewhere stated to have caused a similar excitement to that of Strauss to Zurich; Koestlin, Professor of aesthetics at Tuebingen; and Hilgenfeld, Professor of theology at Jena, who is the best living representative of the modified form which the school has now assumed. Respecting these theologians, see the notes which Stap has affixed, in the Revue Germanique, vol. ix. p. 560, &c. to a French translation of a part of Schwarz's Geschichte.
Concerning this school see Baur's Die Tuebinger Schule, 1859. The organ of it from 1842-57 was the Theologische Jahrbuecher, edited by Baur. Since it ceased to be published, Hilgenfeld has created a new journal, the Zeitschrift fuer Wissenschaftliche Theologie, which receives the support of critics not directly of the Tuebingen school, such as Hitzig and Knobel. Perhaps Schneckenbuerger ought to be ranked with the same school; and Gfroerer also, author of a work on Philo, 1831; but he differed in holding the authenticity of St. John's Gospel; and in 1846 became a Roman catholic, and Professor at Freiberg. See also a paper in Von Sybel's Hist. Zeitschr. for 1860, part iv. translated in Biblioth. Sacr., Jan. 1862. The Tuebingen school has met with able opponents, e.g. Thiersch, Dorner, Ewald, Bleek, Reuss, and Hase.
Note 40. p. 281. The German Theologian Rothe.
Concerning this theologian, now Professor at Heidelberg, see C. Schwarz's Geschichte der neuesten Theologie, p. 279 seq. The cause why the remarks in the text are so brief in regard to Rothe is, that the writer has not been able to see his more important works, which are out of print; and accordingly he derives his knowledge of him at second hand.
Rothe's two most important works are, Die Anfaenge der Christlichen Kirche, 1837, and Theologische Ethic, 1845. An account of the former is given in the often-quoted article by Scherer (Rev. des Deux Mondes, Feb. 15, 1861), pp. 848-860. It appears to view the Christian church from its ideal side, to absorb the individual in the constitution, to show that Christendom is the object of Christianity, an institution the great means of embodying the doctrines; but that, as society becomes fermented by its spirit, the office of Christianity is fulfilled by the state, and the beau ideal would be a society where the church is the state. It is a view similar to that of Coleridge in his Church and State, or of Dr. Arnold in his work on the Church. Mr. F. C. Cook, in Aids to Faith (p. 159), has given some interesting illustrations of this point.
The second of Rothe's works, the Ethic, is briefly described in a previously-cited article in the Westminster Review for April, 1857. Like the former it starts with the idea of the identity of ethics and religion. Regarding personality or the moral relations as the central fact of existence, it surveys material creation under this aspect. Next it discusses the moral and religious history of man, as means of enabling the personal being to subordinate to himself all the forces without or within him. The object apparently is to show, that the spiritual element is not an intrusion, but the normal development of nature or providence; and the moral society, the State, the normal development of the religions society, the Church. Rothe's later views have hardly been developed in system. According to him theology is theosophy; philosophy can work out a theology from the consciousness.
It is probable that the writer of these lines is unintentionally doing injustice, through having to trust to secondhand information, to one who is regarded in Germany as belonging to the highest order of scientific theologians; though perhaps the interesting account of C. Schwarz leaves little to be desired.
Rothe, in accordance with his wish to strengthen orthodox theology by an independent philosophy, and not to support it by material agency, has lately taken part politically on the liberal side, in some questions connected with the church constitution of Baden. (See Colani's Nouvelle Revue de la Theologie, Aug. 1862.)
Note 41. p. 285. The Most Modern Schools Of Philosophy And Theology In Germany.
The object of this note is to carry on the history of philosophy and theology to a more recent date than was necessary in the text.
The idealist school of philosophy reached its highest point with Hegel; and subsequently there has been as great a reaction against this mode of speculation, as the contemporaneous theological one in religion.
The philosopher who was directly or indirectly the cause of the realist tendency was Herbart (1776-1841), who succeeded Kant at Koenigsberg, and afterwards was Professor at Goettingen. Concerning his system, see Morell's History of Philosophy, ii. 206, &c. Chalybaues, ch. iv. and v. He followed out the material, as distinct from the formal, system of the Kantian philosophy, and strove to develop it.
The schools of modern Germany may be reckoned as four:—
(1). The young Hegelian school; e.g. of the younger Fichte, which, though professedly idealistic, and adopting Hegel's method, is really affected largely by realistic tendencies, and seeks for a philosophy of matter as well as form. See Taillandier in Revue des Deux Mondes for 1853, vol. iii. p. 633; and also Oct. 1858; Morell's History of Philosophy, ii. 216, &c. Kahnis, p. 252. This school manifests decidedly realistic tendencies in Kuno Fischer, Weisse, and Branis.
(2.) That which shows a tendency to approach the subject of mental phenomena from the physiological side, in Drobisch, Waitz, and Volkmann, somewhat in the manner of the English writer Herbert Spencer.
(3.) A school decidedly materialist, e.g. Vogt, Moleschott, and Buechner. See Taillandier, Rev. des Deux Mondes, Oct. 1858.
These three tendencies form a gradation from the ideal, and approach the real, until at last the ideal itself is destroyed. The other tendency, if such it may be called, stands apart, and is akin to the older ideal ones. It is (4.) that of Schopenhauer (1788-1860), and tries to solve the problem of existence from the side of the will, instead of the intellect, and bears a remote resemblance to that of Maine de Biran. His system has long been before the public, but since his death has been much discussed. It has been explained by Frauenstaedt. It is also well described in the Westminster Review, April, 1853.
We now pass from the schools of philosophy to theology.
We have implied that there are three great schools of it in Germany; the Neo-Lutheran, the Mediation school, and the Tuebingen; and have seen that they are each in course of transition into slightly new forms in younger hands. The "Neo-Lutheranism" has assumed a more ecclesiastical position, which has been called "Hyper-Lutheranism." The "Mediation" school of Schleiermacher is replaced by a newer form, modified by Hegelianism in Dorner. It remains to add, that the Tuebingen school is giving place to another, of which C. Schwarz himself is a representative—a kind of derivation from the Tuebingen school and that of De Wette. Its organ is the Protestantische Kirchenzeitung; and to it are said(1070) to belong Dr. Dittenberger, court preacher at Weimar, C. Schwarz, who holds the same position at Gotha; Ellester of Potsdam, Sydow of Berlin, and Schweizer of Zurich. Their position seems to be more ethical and less evangelical than the members of the party of free thought in the protestant church of France.
Note 43. p. 289. The Modern Theology Of Switzerland And Holland.
It will be observed, that no notice has been taken in the text, of the modern theology of Switzerland and Holland. It may be desirable therefore to suggest an outline here.
THE THEOLOGY OF SWITZERLAND.—The materials for the account of it are scanty and disjointed. Since the reform of the Swiss universities during the present century, theological thought has chiefly taken the colour of the adjacent countries, Germany or France, in the respective universities where those languages are spoken. In the church of Geneva, about a quarter of a century ago, there seem to have been two parties, similar to those in the French protestant church: one professing the old Calvinistic orthodoxy, which had degenerated into semi-Socinianism; the other, the result of a revival of biblical truth and spiritual religion, under such pastors as D'Aubigne, the historian of the Reformation, and recently Gaussen, the writer on Theopneustie. A movement was commenced under Vinet of Lausanne, which may be considered to be the only native school which Switzerland has produced. It was a mixture of science and earnestness, founded chiefly on a combination of Pascal and Schleiermacher. Concerning Vinet, see a very just article in the North British Review, No. 42, August 1854; and see below, Note 46. Scherer was a friend of Vinet, but has since changed his views, or, as some would think, developed logically their results, and has long left his professorship at Geneva, and acts with the new liberal school in the French protestant church. See Note 46.
German Switzerland has been connected with Germany rather than France. The teaching at the university of Basle was moulded by De Wette, who was made professor there in 1826, a few years after his removal from Berlin. Its character, however, expressed the more orthodox and moderate views of his later years. The instructive writer Hagenbach, professor there, belongs to the "mediation school" of theology, and is a worthy representative of its learned and devout spirit. Zurich possessed a teacher, Usteri, belonging to the school of Schleiermacher; and others, whose tone rather resembled that of the critical school of De Wette, or of the Tuebingen school. The well-known critics Hitzig and Knobel, were formerly its professors; and at present Schweizer is there, concerning whom see Note 41. A few years after Strauss had published his noted work, he was elected, as stated before, theological professor at Zurich, but the appointment was cancelled by a revolution of the people. See the Address of Orelli (translated 1844). The appointment of Zeller of the Tuebingen school to Berne, created a similar excitement. In the proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance at Geneva, 1861, professor Riggenbach, of Basle, stated that some of the journals of eastern Switzerland adopt sceptical principles. (News of the Churches, Oct. 1861.) He named the Zeit-stimmen aus der Reformirten Kirche der Schweiz, which is edited at Winterthur by Lang, a pupil of Baur. In German Switzerland, however, as well as French, there exists a biblical school of theology; of which professor Riggenbach of Basle is an example.
THE THEOLOGY OF HOLLAND.—The sources were given above (p. 110.) for the study of Arminianism and Calvinism in the seventeenth century. The subsequent history is soon told. We omit, of course, the history of the Romish church in Holland, and of the Jansenist secession from it, which took place in 1705.
The Protestant church continued to exist in two branches; viz. the Calvinists, or established church, who professed the creed of the synod of Dort; and the Remonstrants, who professed the moderate Arminianism of Episcopius; similar to that which was taught by our own Hales and Chillingworth. The studies in the established church were specially devoted to exegesis, in reference to which the name of Schultens of Leyden, in the last century, is well known; manifesting a slight inclination to free inquiry in Van der Palm (1763-1838).
About 1830, the condition of the church was a cold orthodoxy, much like that of the "moderate" party in the church of Scotland before the rupture of 1843. The stronghold of this party was the university of Utrecht. Living isolated, and resembling the English in not easily admitting foreign influences, the Dutch read little of German literature. A periodical existed, the Theological Contributions, which used to bestow praises on the school of Bretschneider.
A little before 1830, a movement of evangelical piety had been kindled in the church, through the influence of the poet Bilderdyk (who died 1831), and of his two disciples, the Portuguese Jew of Amsterdam, Da Costa (who died in 1860), and Cappadose. Their position however was, a return to the rigid decrees of the synod of Dort and the theology of Calvin. They resembled very nearly the party in the church of Scotland which formed the free church. They acquainted themselves with German theology for the purpose of refuting it; and Da Costa wrote a work, The Four Witnesses, on the four Evangelists, in reply to Strauss; which has been translated. In 1834 they separated from the national church under two pastors, De Cock and Scholte, and endured much persecution. The Voices of the Netherlands was the periodical which expressed their views. Van Oosterze, pastor at Rotterdam, belonged to them. This party has been represented in the Dutch parliament by Groen van Printsterer. It has lost its political influence in some degree in recent years, by opposing political reforms.
Almost simultaneously with this Calvinistic revival, a school arose in the university of Groningen, a "mediation" school, modelled upon Schleiermacher, under the influence of the Platonist Van Heusde (1778-1839), led by Hofstede de Groot, Pareau, and Muurling. Its organ was Truth in Charity. The views held were a spiritual Arianism. They may be seen in a novel published recently (1861) at Cape Town, for the Dutch colonists, entitled, The Pastor of Vliethuizen, or Conversations about the Groningen School, translated by Dr. Lorgian.
These three parties were the chief in Holland, until about 1850. Since then a more decided movement of free thought has begun in the university of Leyden. Up to that time the venerable Van Hengel remained there, the example of the old philological orthodoxy of Holland. Two professors have now created an independent movement, more nearly resembling that of the Tuebingen school; J. H. Scholten, in dogma; and, with rather more advanced views, the orientalist H. Kuenen in philology. (A list of some of Scholten's publications may be seen in the Westminster Review for July, 1862, page 43, note. His Hist. comparee de la Philos. et de la Relig. was translated by Reville, in the Nouvelle Rev. de la Theologie, April 18.) Busker Huet has asserted still more advanced views than these, apparently simple naturalism. The Positivist philosophy has found an advocate in Opzoomer, one of the professors at Utrecht.
The sources of this account are chiefly found in Ullmann's paper in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840, part iii. translated by professor Edwards, with additions, in the American Bibliotheca Sacra for 1845; and in an interesting article by A. Reville of Rotterdam, himself one of the liberal school of the French protestant church, in the Revue des Deux Mondes for June 15, 1860. Chautepie de la Saussure, pastor of the Walloon church at Leyden, formerly of the Groningen school, has also written in French, La Crise Religieuse en Hollande, 1859; but it is chiefly devoted to personal questions. A sketch of the Dutch universities and their intellectual characteristics was given by Esquiros in the Revue des Deux Mondes, 1856, vol. iii.
Note 44. p. 297. The Eclectic School Of France.
The Eclectic School is sketched in Morell's History of Philosophy, vol. ii. c. viii; Damiron's Essai sur l'Histoire de la Philosophie en France au 19eme siecle, 1828, pp. 280-385: Nettement's Histoire de la Litt. Franc. sous la Restoration, 1853, vol. i. b. ii. p. 127 seq.; vol. ii. b. viii. p. 290 seq.; and Hist. de la Litt. Franc. sous le Gouvernement de Juillet, vol. i. b. vi: also in Taine's Philosophie Francaise du 19eme siecle. The last writer is wholly unfavourable to the school, on the ground of the uselessness of metaphysical philosophy.
The eclectic school was the means of uniting together the philosophy of Scotland and Germany, which had previously been running in separate streams. The leading minds of the school have been four,—Royer Collard, Maine de Biran, Cousin, and Jouffroy.
The founder of it, R. Collard (1763-1845), was a disciple of the Scotch school, who about 1812 commenced an attack on the philosophy of Condillac, very similar to that of Reid on Hume. He devoted himself to the analysis of the intellectual and moral parts of men, in order to assert the existence of a world within, independent of sensational impressions. The next writer, Maine de Biran (1766-1824), devoted himself especially to the examination of the will and the notion of cause, and reproduced the ideas of Leibnitz. The third, Cousin (born 1792), succeeded Collard in 1815 as professor at Paris; and in his early lectures followed the Scotch school. When the conservative reaction occurred in 1822, consequent on the assassination of the duke de Berri, the constitutional party was thrown into disgrace; and Cousin therefore retired into Germany, and there imbibed the spirit of the great schools of philosophy, especially of Schelling and Jacobi. He has given, his own history in the preface to Fragments Philosophiques, vol. ii. Lastly came Jouffroy, the translator of Dugald Stewart, who improved upon the Scotch school. See Sainte-Beuve's criticism on Jouffroy. (Crit. Litt. vol. i.)
Damiron was an admirable exponent of the eclectic school; Benjamin Constant, Degerando, and Lerminier, partially belonged to the same school. Its effects are ably stated in Morell. The delicate hand of E. Renan also has sketched the influence of Cousin et L'ecole Spiritualiste, in the Revue des Deux Monds, April. 1858; reprinted in his Essais de Morale et de Critique.
Note 45. p. 300. The Catholic Reactionary School Of France.
Concerning this school, see Morell's History of Philosophy, vol. ii. pp. 274-318; Damiron (as in the last note), pp. 105-197; Nettement (second work), vol. i. b. v.
The members of this school all agree in reposing upon the principle of authority; but differ in the source in which they place it. Their philosophy accordingly does not aim at discovering truth, but only the authority on which we may rely as the oracle of truth.
The founder of the movement was De Maistre (1753-1821), the bitter opponent of the Baconian philosophy, whose doctrine, about the time of his death, was absolute submission to the catholic church. See concerning him C. Remusat in the Revue des Deux Mondes, May 1857; and E. Scherer's Melanges de la Critique Religieuse. Lamennais belonged to the same movement. In his early manner, as expressed in his Essai sur l'Indifference, 1821, he found the test of truth in primitive revelations transmitted by testimony; in his later, he abandoned this school, and strove to work out philosophy, in part independently of authority. The next writer, De Bonald, sought for truth in the same source, viz. fragments of divinely communicated knowledge, transmitted in the languages of mankind. On Bonald see C. Remusat (Revue, as quoted above). The Abbe Bautain improved upon this system by placing the ground of certitude in the authority of Revelation, and considered the office of philosophy to end when it has shown the necessity of a revelation. Next to him came D'Eckstein, who sought the test of truth in authority based on researches into the catholic beliefs of mankind. The two latter views, it will be perceived, are far nobler than the former. Maret, whose writings have been before cited, also belongs to this reactionary school.
Note 46. p. 304. The Modern School Of Free Thought In The Protestant Church Of France.
The object of this note is to enumerate some of the chief of those theologians to whom allusion is made in the text, and to exhibit their relations to each other.
One of the best known is Colani, a pastor at Strasburg, the able editor of the Nouvelle Revue de la Theologie, and author of several volumes of sermons: also A. Reville, pastor of the Walloon church at Rotterdam, a frequent writer in the same Review, and in the Revue des Deux Mondes; Reuss, a professor at Strasburg, author of a history of the early church, in French, and Beitraege zu den Theologischen Wissenschaften, in German; Scherer, the friend of Vinet, once professor at Geneva, author of Melanges de Critique Religieuse, reprinted mostly from Colani's Review, of which the first four papers give his theological views on Inspiration, the Bible, and Sin.(1071)
The able critic, Michel Nicholas, professor at Montauban, author of Etudes Critiques sur la Bible, and Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs pendant les deux siecles anterieurs a l'ere Chretienne, probably may be classed with the same; but he has not written on doctrine. A. Cocquerel fils, pastor at Paris, also is connected with Colani's Review, and is considered to possess the same sympathies.
The difference of the point of view of these writers from that of the Eclectic school would be, that while the latter would regard the human race as able to pass beyond Christianity, the former would only wish to get rid of the dogmas which they think have been superadded in the course of ages, and to return to the simple teaching of the sermon on the mount.
One writer more has been reckoned with the same party by the English public, E. De Pressense, a pastor in the free Protestant church at Paris, author of the Church History so often referred to in this volume, and of sermons on the Sauveur, and editor of the Revue Chretienne; but he appears to possess an evangelical and more orthodox tone than some of the above.
In truth there are two distinct parties in the movement which we are describing, each of which stands in a different relation to the older parties of the protestant church. At the beginning of the century the French protestant church held an unpietistic kind of supernaturalism, not very unlike that of Reinhard in Germany, of which the best living type is the eloquent and learned A. Cocquerel pere. About 1820 an awakening of the spiritual life of the church took place, under the action of the Spirit of God primarily, and through the agency of such ministrations as those of Adolphe Monod instrumentally. From the former school has arisen the movement seen in Colani and Reville; from the latter, that seen in Vinet and Pressense. The former is a change which has passed over the old Latitudinarian school, much like those which in Germany have taken the place of the teaching of such men as Reinhard and Bretschneider. Of the pastors named above, who belong to this class, A. Cocquerel fils is the least removed from the ordinary creed. His stand-point may be compared to that of Schleiermacher, or of the school of Groningen. (See Note 41.) Reville and Colani advance very much farther. The other movement, of which Vinet of Lausanne was the cause, has sprung from the application of science to the newly-spreading views of evangelical religion. Vinet tried to harmonize religion and knowledge, by presenting Christianity on the ground of its internal rather than its external evidence, and proclaimed it as ethics built on doctrine; which doctrine he held to be built on historic fact. His position may be best compared with Neander's in Germany, or perhaps in some respects with that of Tholuck. Nearly the same position is assumed by Pressense at Paris, and Astie at Lausanne. Pressense rests upon the Bible as the "formal principle" of theology, and the work of Christ as the "material."
The writer feels much hesitation in venturing to classify these authors, which nevertheless seemed desirable on account of the spread of their writings in England. The above description, founded on personal study of their works, is confirmed by two criticisms on them; one by C. Remusat, in the Revue des Deux Mondes, Jan. 1862; the other in the British Quarterly Review, Oct. 1862. But care ought to be used in describing the actors in a movement which is not complete; and in making the attempt, to distinguish especially those who are conceived to deviate from vital truth in doctrine, from those who may differ in questions of literature or criticism. It is due to these writers to express admiration for their genuine love of intellectual and political liberty, much as we may be compelled to differ from their theological opinions.
Note 47. p. 320. Modern Opinions With Respect To Mythology.
In the last century the opinions on the nature of mythology were two. That which taught that myths are distortions of traditions derived from the early Hebrew literature, was put forward in the seventeenth century, as early as philosophy was applied to the subject, by Huet and Bossuet, and retained its hold throughout the last century, and is advocated in the present by Mr. Gladstone (Work on Homer, vol. ii. ch. ii). The opposite theory interpreted myths by an Euhemeristic process, or allegorized them by regarding them as originally descriptions of the physical processes of nature. In the present century Creuzer (Symbolik, 1810) applied the method of comparison, and, studying Greek mythology in correlation with that of other countries, taught in a Neo-Platonic sense that myths are a second language, the echo of nature in the consciousness. Creuzers system was opposed by Lobeck about 1824, Voss, and G. Hermann, who objected to the excess of symbolism and the sacerdotal ideas implied in it; and by Ottfried Mueller, and Welcker, on the narrower ground of asserting the independence of Greek mythology from foreign influence. More recently the careful study of the Sanskrit language and early literature by Max Mueller, Kuhn, &c. has thrown new light upon the subject; and the solution of the problem is now approached from the side of language, and not merely from that of tradition or monuments. The distinction of myth and legend is now clear; the family relationship between the myths of different nations is made apparent; the date in human history of their creation; and the cause of them is sought in the attempt to express abstract ideas by means of the extension of concrete terms. See the Essay on Comparative Mythology by Max Mueller, in the Oxford Essays for 1856. See also the Journal for Comp. Phil. of Kuhn and Aufrecht. And for a criticism on Creuzer, see E. Renan's Etudes d'Histoire Religieuse (Ess. i).
Note 48. p. 363. The External And Internal Branches Of Evidence.
It may be almost superfluous to name that the evidences are usually divided into 1. external, and 2. internal. Each of these requires a subdivision into (α) the divine, and (β) the human.
The external divine are miracles and prophecy; the external human are the historical proof as to the authenticity and genuineness of the literature which contains the narrative of the miracles and the prophecy. The internal divine are sought in the accordance of the materials of the Revelation, the character of Christ, the scheme of Redemption, &c. with the moral sense of man, and with the expectations which we should form antecedently of the contents of a revelation; the internal human, in the critical evidence of undesigned coincidence. Looked at logically, the second is like the corroboration of the testimony of a witness; the fourth, like cross-examining him. The first two may amount almost to demonstration, being what Aristotle (Rhet. i. 2.) would call τεκμήρια: the two latter have only the force of probability; the third being antecedent probability, εἰκός; the fourth, the ἀνώνυμον σμηεῖον, or circumstantial evidence. The argument of analogy used by Butler, which may be regarded as almost(1072) one form of Aristotle's παράδειγμα (Rhet. ii. 20), (if looked at on its positive side, and not merely its negative, as disproof of objections,) comes under the third, inasmuch as it offers a series of principles obtained by generalization from the natural and moral world, which furnish an antecedent presumption of the character of any revealed scheme. The remarks in the text relate to tho comparative weight to be given to the first and third of the four classes named above. The advantage of Butler's argument over the other cases of internal a priori evidence is, that it is founded on previous careful induction; the other kinds of anticipations are founded only on hasty empirical generalizations. For this view of the evidences, see Hampden's Introduction to the Philosophical Evidences of Christianity; Davidson's Lectures on Prophecy (Introductory Lecture); and W. D. Conybeare's Lectures on Theology, ch. i.
Note 49. p. 366. The History Of The Christian Evidences.
As frequent references have been made to the subject of apologetic in connexion with the history of free thought, it seems desirable to give a brief literary history of the Evidences, and to indicate the works where further information may be obtained with regard to them.
There are two methods of studying the subject; either to classify the Evidences in the manner of the last Note,(1073) and proceed to notice the ages in which, and the authors by whom, each portion of them has been developed, together with the causes which have called them forth; or else, to adopt the historic plan, and trace their gradual growth through the course of ages. By the latter method (if we exclude all that strictly belongs to the province of polemic as distinct from apologetic), we find the following controversies:—in the early centuries, the double contest against the Jews and against the Pagans; in the early middle ages, against the Mahometans without, and Freethinkers within, the limits of Christendom; at the Renaissance, against unbelief within the church: in more modern times, whilst the argument against the Jew has been called forth by contact with the Jewish denizens scattered through Europe, and the Mahometan has been occasionally excited by missionary labours; there has been the contemporaneous struggle within the church, against deism, atheism, and rationalism.
This history, it will be observed, is so complex, that it would be necessary to study each branch of the contest separately. Accordingly, we have treated in distinct notes the contests with the Jew (Note 4), and the Mahometan (Note 5); and there remain for study those which existed with the Pagan in the early ages, and with the various forms of scepticism in the later.
It will be convenient to classify the inquiry, under the four epochs according to which we have studied the history of unbelief in the preceding lectures; viz. (1) the contest of Christianity with Paganism; (2) with the incipient free thought of the middle ages; (8) with the unbelief of the Renaissance; and (4) with the subsequent forms of unbelief, which it may be useful to classify according to the countries where they have respectively appeared,—England, France, and Germany.
1. The apology or defence of Christianity against Pagans commences with the apostolic age.(1074) Its first form is seen in the missionary speech of St. Paul at Athens. The first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans also may be regarded as expressing the same ideas. The defence consisted in an appeal to the heart as well as to fact; to show the heathen the need of Christianity before presenting the statement of its nature, and the evidence of its divine character. In the second century, when it became gradually understood that Christianity was not a mere Jewish sect; and when the attack consisted in calumnies and persecutions, as stated in Lect. II. pp. 48, 54, the apologies especially were directed to repel the charges, or to demand toleration: (see Note 15.) In the third and fourth centuries the attack was more intelligent, and the statement of objections more definite; and the character of the apologies altered correspondingly.
There is some difficulty in arranging the early Apologies. A recent writer, Pressense, who has made a special study of them, has used, as his fundamental principle of classification, the view which the authors took of the relation of the soul of man to Christianity; according to which he makes three classes; the first, comprising those who thought that the soul of man was fitted for truth, and acknowledged the heathen religions as a preparation for Christianity; the second, those who, taking the same view of human nature, regarded the heathen religions as corruptions, and wholly injurious; and the third, those who took such a desponding view of human nature as to regard it as possessing no truth without revelation (Hist. vol. ii. ser. ii. p. 164-5.) As examples of the first class, he cites Origen and most of the earlier fathers; of the second, Tertullian; of the third, Arnobius. He thinks, but perhaps hardly rightly, that the chronological order in which the three views occurred, coincides also with this mode of arrangement. It will be evident that the first two classes show an attempt to approach Christianity a priori, by arousing the sense of want; the last by "crushing the human soul" by authority: the first of the three trying to open the way for the reception of Christianity, by describing it as the highest philosophy and religion; the second as the substitute for both; but both schools agreeing in describing it as the satisfaction of the world's yearnings. It will be also apparent why the presentation of the a priori internal Evidences should precede the external. When the world had been impressed with the necessity of a new religion, then the opportunity came for employing the cogent power of the external and historic evidence which authenticates Christianity.
A less artificial manner however of studying the Apologies would be to view them in time, and in space; i.e. according to their date, and the churches from which they emanate, whether Syrian, Alexandrian, Roman, or African; with the view of witnessing at once the alteration in the attack and the character of the apology which existed in different countries at one and the same time.
It appears worthy of notice however, that the attempt to find difference of treatment according to difference of country almost entirely fails. If applied as a principle of classifying manuscripts, or modes of exegesis, or liturgical uses, sufficient variety is exhibited to prove that the Christian church was a collection of provincial churches, each possessing its national peculiarity, each contributing to swell the general harmony by uttering its own appropriate note; but, when applied to the subject of apologetic, the method fails to show a difference in the method of defence which was simultaneously used in the great Christian army; which forms a proof of the facility of intercourse between different churches, and of the uniformity in the character of the attack directed simultaneously on the church in different lands. The change in the character of the Evidences with the growth of time, according to the alteration of attack described above, is apparent, but not the variation at the same date in different parts of the world. We shall therefore merely present a list, in which the apologists are arranged according to place and date, without attempting to draw inferences which cannot be supported.
The recent publication of Pressense's work, where the spirit of the apologies is given, together with an analysis of their contents, renders it unnecessary to offer here a full analysis of them, as had been intended. Other works indeed partially supplied the need previous to his. Such, for example, were Houtteville's Introduction to La Religion Chretienne prouree par des Faits, containing an account of the authors for and against Christianity (translated 1739); Schramm's Analysis Patrum, 1780; Scultetus's Medulloe. Patr. Syntagma, 1631; and for the Apostolic Fathers, the Introduction to Mr. Woodham's edition of Tertullian's Apology.
It will be sufficient accordingly to give a list of the writers, with a very brief mention of the object of their treatises,(1075) and to enumerate the literary sources from which further information may be obtained in respect to them.
Table of the Early Apologists, according to Date and Place.
A.D. Rome and Africa. Athens. Alexandria. Syria. Western Provinces. 150 [Aristides 130]; [Quadratus]; Justin? 150; Tatian; Athenagoras; Hermias? 200 Tertullian; Clement 190 Theophilus Minucius 180 Felix? 230 Cyprian; Origen 240 Commodian 300 Arnobius [Methodius]; Lactantius Eusebius Jul. Athanasius Chrysostom Firmicus; Ambrose; Prudentius 400 Orosius; Augustin Cyril Jerome? Salvian Theodoret
N. B. The names in brackets are of authors whose apologies are almost wholly lost; those in italics are the ones which alone are usually mentioned in a list of apologists. To the above ought perhaps to have been added for completeness, Maternus, A.D. 350; Ephraim the Syrian; and Apollinaris of Asia Minor, who replied to Julian. The names marked with a note of interrogation denote those in reference to which the reader may demur to the classification. Justin Martyr wrote at Rome; but he wrote in Greek, and was a Greek philosopher in spirit. Of Hermias little is known. Jerome lived much in Syria, and leaned to the Syrian school of exegesis, so that he has been classed with the Syrian church, though his intimacy with Augustin and his writing in Latin might rather have caused him to be classed with the western. Also Minucius Felix ought perhaps rather to be classed with the Roman than the African church.
We shall next state the purpose of the treatises of those Apologists, whose names are printed in italics in the table.
The first group consists of Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Hermias, and Theophilus; the first three of whom may be considered to express the defence of Christian philosophers, who were striving to explain the nature of Christianity, partly with a view to plead for toleration, partly to make converts.
Justin has left two apologies; one against the Jews, the other against the heathens; (a second against the heathens is a fragment.) In both he adopted the same plan, of first repelling prejudices, and then assaulting his opponent. That which is directed against the Jews is analysed in Kaye's Justin, c. xi. In that which was directed against the heathens, he first repelled the charges made against Christians, such as atheism, Thyestean banquets, and treason against the state; and next, those made against Christianity, especially those which related to its late introduction, the person of Christ, and the doctrine of the resurrection. In proceeding to assault heathenism, he endeavoured to show that it did not possess religious truth, and claimed that the points of agreement with Christian truth were borrowed; and after having thus shown the superiority of Christianity to heathenism, he endeavoured to show its divinity, by the internal evidence of its doctrines and effects, and by the external evidence of miracles and prophecies.
Tatian's treatise in substance was an invective against the pagans, on the absurdity and iniquity of the pagan theology and its recent origin, with a running comparison between it and Christianity.
The object of Athenagoras was to plead for toleration; and consequently he employed himself in vindicating the Christians from various charges, such as incest, Thyestean banquets; and retaliated the charges on the heathen.
The little work of Hermias, the date of which is uncertain, (see Lardner, Cred. ch. xxv. and Cave, Hist. Lit. lxxxi. is a kind of sermon on St. Paul's words, "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." In an amusing manner, not unlike Lucian, he criticised the heathen philosophy, arguing its falsehood from the contradictory opinions held in it.
The form of Theophilus's work Ad Autolycum is not unlike some of those which have preceded. Indeed the form was suggested by circumstances; being a defence of Christianity against particular charges, and the retaliation of similar ones on the heathens. He drew out the attributes of the true God, b. i; and afterwards exhibited the falsehood of the heathen religion and history, b. ii; defending Christians from the absurd charges made against them; and attempting to show the originality and antiquity of the Hebrew history and chronology, b. iii.
The next group of Apologists, which comprises the writers of the African church, Tertullian and Minucius Felix, differs from the last in spirit, though resembling them in purpose. It is the defence made by rhetoricians instead of philosophers. The purpose too, like that of the preceding Apologists, is partly to effect conviction, partly to obtain toleration; but there is a consciousness of the presence of danger, hardly perceivable in the former writers. We feel, as we read these early African writers, that they write like men who felt themselves in the presence of persecution, and who were brought more nearly than the former writers into the face of their foe.
Tertullian's Tract, which is analysed both by Mr. Woodham in his edition of it, and by Mr. T. Chevallier in his translation of it, is chiefly defensive. He claims toleration, ch. i-vii; refutes the miscellaneous charges against Christianity, ch. x-xxvii; and the charge of treason (xxviii-xxxvii); explains the nature of Christianity (xvii-xxiii); and compares it with philosophy, ch. xlv-xlvii.
The work of Minucius Felix is a dialogue between a heathen, Caecilius, and a Christian, Octavius. The heathen opens by denying a Providence; next inveighs against the Christians, by a series of charges such as were named in Note 15; and then attacks the Christian doctrines and condition. The Christian Octavius is made to answer each point successively.
In passing now from the African school of Apologists to the Alexandrian, we leave the rhetoricians, and meet with the philosophers, Clement and Origen. Clement precedes Tertullian by a few years; Origen succeeds Minucius Felix.
Clement, in part of his Stromata, and in his Cohortatio, has expressed the spirit of his apologetic; which resembles those of the first group, in admitting the value of heathen philosophy as a preparation for Christianity, and claims that the Hebrews are the source of philosophy, and that Christianity is the full satisfaction for those who sought knowledge.
The spirit and details of Origen's defence have been so fully given in Lecture II. and Note 14, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon the subject. His apology marks a further step. Tertullian replied to the prejudices of the vulgar, and M. Felix to the scepticism of the educated, which formed two elements in the heathen reaction of the second century. Origen furnished the reply to the attack made by the heathen philosophy. It is in reply to Celsus, who possessed a competent knowledge of Christianity; and who, though writing earlier than the time when the charges which Tertullian afterwards refuted were common, was too well informed to have believed them, and opposed Christianity on deeper grounds. Celsus stands later logically, though not chronologically, than the authors of those frivolous charges, and midway between them and the educated assailants of Christianity of the third century, such as Porphyry. Origen's defence too marks a similar advance, and, by exhibiting sympathy with the very philosophy which Porphyry and others adopted, shows the kind of defence which was thought likely to attract philosophic minds.
The chronology compels us to return to the African church, and introduces us to two Apologists;—Arnobius and Lactantius; one of whom seems to have written a little before Christianity had become a tolerated religion; the latter a little afterwards.
The work of Arnobius is taken up, partly in repelling charges made against the Christians, such as that the Christians do not worship, which are no longer charges of the absurd kind made a century before, partly in comparing Christianity and heathenism; and partly in offering the evidence for Christianity. It is in this point that we find the peculiarity which belongs to Arnobius. He is the first writer who lays firm stress on the demonstrative character of the evidence of fact. In previous writers Christianity had been proved by probability: he makes it to rest on the evidence of certainty; and considers the fact of the revelation to guarantee the contents of it.
The large work of Lactantius, the Institutiones Divinae, is a work of ethics as well as of defence. Christians have obtained protection, and defence is becoming didactic: apology is expiring in instruction: all that is now needed for the spread of Christianity is, that its nature should be understood. The work is partly a work of religion, partly of philosophy, partly of ethics; the object in each case being to show that Christianity supplies the only true form in each department of thought.
The remaining Apologists may be grouped together, though they have no point of union, except that their arguments are directed to the special condition of heathenism; when, being no longer triumphant, it was standing on the defensive, and, at the time of the two latter of the group, was fast declining. They are, Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustin.
If Origen is the metaphysical philosopher of the early Apologists; if Augustin is the political; Eusebius is the man of erudition. He has left, besides the small work against Hierocles (see Note 17), two works of defence; the first the Evangelica Praeparatio, against the Gentiles; the second the Evangelica Demonstratio, more suited for the Jews. The former work is to show that Christianity has not been accepted without just cause; which he attempts to prove by a very elaborate discussion (valuable to us in a literary point of view, on account of the quotations which he has preserved) of the various religions, Egyptian, Phoenician, Greek, and of the various types of Greek thought and belief; and, by a comparison of them with the Hebrew, he shows the superiority of the last. The other work, the Evangelica Demonstratio, is designed to prove that Christ and Christianity fulfil the ancient prophecies. His apology marks the transitionary time when Christianity was becoming the religion of the Roman world, and men hesitated as to its truth, looking back with regret to the past, with uneasiness to the future.
The other two Apologists are nearly a century later; when Christianity had been long established.
Cyril has already come before us as the respondent to Julian. It is enough to refer to Lecture II. and Note 19, in relation to him. It is worthy of observation, that the circumstance that he should consider it necessary to reply to Julian's work, at so long a period after the death of the author, and the frustration of his schemes, seems to show the continued existence of a wavering in the faith of Christians, of which we seldom have the opportunity of finding the traces at so late a period.
If Cyril marks the apology of the Alexandrian church at the commencement of the fifth century, Augustin similarly exhibits that of the African in presence of the new woes which were bursting upon the world. Christianity had long lived down the charges made against it by prejudice, and shown itself to be the philosophy which the educated craved. The charges of treason too had ceased, for it had become the established religion; but one prejudice still remained. Victorious with man; triumphant over the prejudices of the vulgar, the opinions of the philosophers, and the power of the state; it still was not, it seemed, victorious in heaven; and at last the heathen gods were arousing themselves to take vengeance on the earth for the overthrow of their worship, by a series of terrible calamities. Apprehensions like these haunted the imagination; and it was the object of Augustin, in his work, De Civitate Dei, to remove them. That work was a philosophy of society; it was the history of the church and of the world, viewed in presence of the dissolution, social and political, which seemed impending.
These brief remarks will suffice to give a faint idea of the line of argument adopted by the early Apologists. Further information in regard to them may be found in the following sources:—
In a history of this period written by Tzchirner, Geschichte der Apologetik, 1805; also another by Van Senden, 1831, translated into German from the Dutch, 1841; Clausen, Apologetae Ecc. Chr. ante-Theodosiani, 1817; and a brief account in Stein, Die Apologetik des Christenthum, 6. p. 13. Other references may be found in Hase's Church History, E. T. 52; Hagenbach's Dogmengeschichte, 29, 117; and in J. A. Fabricius, Delectus Argument, ch. i. In the same work (ch. ii-v.) is an account of the chief Apologists, and of the fragments of their lost writings. In reference to the character of the apologetic works of the early fathers, information may also be obtained in Walch's Biblioth. Patristic. (ed. Danz. 1834.) 97-100. ch. x; and concerning some of them in P. G. Lumper's Hist. Theol.-Crit. de Sanct. Patr. 1785; Moehler's Patrologie, 1840; Ritter's Chr. Phil. i and ii; Neander's Kirchengeschichte, i. 242 seq.; ii. 411 seq.; Kaye'a works on Justin, Clement, and Tertullian; and Dr. A. Clarke's Succession of Ecclesiastical Literature, 1832.
On a review of these early apologies, some peculiarities are observable.
First, with the exception of Origen's treatise, and some parts of Eusebius, they are inferior as works of mind to many of modern times.(1076) This was to be expected from the character of the age; the literature of that period being poor in tone, compared with the earlier and with the modern. In works of encyclopaedic history and geography, and in a reconsideration of philosophy by the light of the past, it had indeed some excellences; but the literature as a whole, not only the Latin, but even the Greek, was debased by the substitution of rhetoric for the healthy freshness of thought and poetry of older times: and the apologetic literature partakes of the tone of its age. The Christian writers, when looked at in a literary point of view, must be compared with authors of their own times. The Alexandrian apologies rise sometimes to philosophy; but those of the Greek nation sink to rhetoric. In later times, men who were giants in mind and learning have written on behalf of Christianity; and it would be unfair to the apologetic fathers to compare them with these.