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 _pére_. 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 Pressensé. 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 Pressensé at Paris, and Astié at Lausanne.
Pressensé 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. Rémusat, 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.
Lecture VIII.
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 Müller, 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 Müller,
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 Müller, 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 _à priori_
evidence is, that it is founded on previous careful induction; the other
kinds of anticipations are founded only on hasty empirical
generalizations. For this view of the evidences, see Hampden’s
_Introduction to the Philosophical Evidences of Christianity_; Davidson’s
_Lectures on Prophecy_ (Introductory Lecture); and W. D. Conybeare’s
_Lectures on Theology_, ch. i.
Note 49. p. 366. The History Of The Christian Evidences.
As frequent references have been made to the subject of apologetic in
connexion with the history of free thought, it seems desirable to give a
brief literary history of the Evidences, and to indicate the works where
further information may be obtained with regard to them.
There are two methods of studying the subject; either to classify the
Evidences in the manner of the last Note,(1073) and proceed to notice the
ages in which, and the authors by whom, each portion of them has been
developed, together with the causes which have called them forth; or else,
to adopt the historic plan, and trace their gradual growth through the
course of ages. By the latter method (if we exclude all that strictly
belongs to the province of polemic as distinct from apologetic), we find
the following controversies:—in the early centuries, the double contest
against the Jews and against the Pagans; in the early middle ages, against
the Mahometans without, and Freethinkers within, the limits of
Christendom; at the Renaissance, against unbelief within the church: in
more modern times, whilst the argument against the Jew has been called
forth by contact with the Jewish denizens scattered through Europe, and
the Mahometan has been occasionally excited by missionary labours; there
has been the contemporaneous struggle within the church, against deism,
atheism, and rationalism.
This history, it will be observed, is so complex, that it would be
necessary to study each branch of the contest separately. Accordingly, we
have treated in distinct notes the contests with the Jew (Note 4), and the
Mahometan (Note 5); and there remain for study those which existed with
the Pagan in the early ages, and with the various forms of scepticism in
the later.
It will be convenient to classify the inquiry, under the four epochs
according to which we have studied the history of unbelief in the
preceding lectures; viz. (1) the contest of Christianity with Paganism;
(2) with the incipient free thought of the middle ages; (8) with the
unbelief of the Renaissance; and (4) with the subsequent forms of
unbelief, which it may be useful to classify according to the countries
where they have respectively appeared,—England, France, and Germany.
1. The apology or defence of Christianity against Pagans commences with
the apostolic age.(1074) Its first form is seen in the missionary speech
of St. Paul at Athens. The first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans also
may be regarded as expressing the same ideas. The defence consisted in an
appeal to the heart as well as to fact; to show the heathen the need of
Christianity before presenting the statement of its nature, and the
evidence of its divine character. In the second century, when it became
gradually understood that Christianity was not a mere Jewish sect; and
when the attack consisted in calumnies and persecutions, as stated in
Lect. II. pp. 48, 54, the apologies especially were directed to repel the
charges, or to demand toleration: (see Note 15.) In the third and fourth
centuries the attack was more intelligent, and the statement of objections
more definite; and the character of the apologies altered correspondingly.
There is some difficulty in arranging the early Apologies. A recent
writer, Pressensé, who has made a special study of them, has used, as his
fundamental principle of classification, the view which the authors took
of the relation of the soul of man to Christianity; according to which he
makes three classes; the first, comprising those who thought that the soul
of man was fitted for truth, and acknowledged the heathen religions as a
preparation for Christianity; the second, those who, taking the same view
of human nature, regarded the heathen religions as corruptions, and wholly
injurious; and the third, those who took such a desponding view of human
nature as to regard it as possessing no truth without revelation (_Hist._
vol. ii. ser. ii. p. 164-5.) As examples of the first class, he cites
Origen and most of the earlier fathers; of the second, Tertullian; of the
third, Arnobius. He thinks, but perhaps hardly rightly, that the
chronological order in which the three views occurred, coincides also with
this mode of arrangement. It will be evident that the first two classes
show an attempt to approach Christianity _à priori_, by arousing the sense
of want; the last by “crushing the human soul” by authority: the first of
the three trying to open the way for the reception of Christianity, by
describing it as the highest philosophy and religion; the second as the
substitute for both; but both schools agreeing in describing it as the
satisfaction of the world’s yearnings. It will be also apparent why the
presentation of the _à priori_ internal Evidences should precede the
external. When the world had been impressed with the necessity of a new
religion, then the opportunity came for employing the cogent power of the
external and historic evidence which authenticates Christianity.
A less artificial manner however of studying the Apologies would be to
view them in time, and in space; i.e. according to their date, and the
churches from which they emanate, whether Syrian, Alexandrian, Roman, or
African; with the view of witnessing at once the alteration in the attack
and the character of the apology which existed in different countries at
one and the same time.
It appears worthy of notice however, that the attempt to find difference
of treatment according to difference of country almost entirely fails. If
applied as a principle of classifying manuscripts, or modes of exegesis,
or liturgical uses, sufficient variety is exhibited to prove that the
Christian church was a collection of provincial churches, each possessing
its national peculiarity, each contributing to swell the general harmony
by uttering its own appropriate note; but, when applied to the subject of
apologetic, the method fails to show a difference in the method of defence
which was simultaneously used in the great Christian army; which forms a
proof of the facility of intercourse between different churches, and of
the uniformity in the character of the attack directed simultaneously on
the church in different lands. The change in the character of the
Evidences with the growth of time, according to the alteration of attack
described above, is apparent, but not the variation at the same date in
different parts of the world. We shall therefore merely present a list, in
which the apologists are arranged according to place and date, without
attempting to draw inferences which cannot be supported.
The recent publication of Pressensé’s work, where the spirit of the
apologies is given, together with an analysis of their contents, renders
it unnecessary to offer here a full analysis of them, as had been
intended. Other works indeed partially supplied the need previous to his.
Such, for example, were Houtteville’s Introduction to _La Religion
Chrétienne prourée par des Faits_, containing an account of the authors
for and against Christianity (translated 1739); Schramm’s _Analysis
Patrum_, 1780; Scultetus’s _Medullœ. Patr. Syntagma_, 1631; and for the
Apostolic Fathers, the Introduction to Mr. Woodham’s edition of
Tertullian’s _Apology_.
It will be sufficient accordingly to give a list of the writers, with a
very brief mention of the object of their treatises,(1075) and to
enumerate the literary sources from which further information may be
obtained in respect to them.
_Table of the Early Apologists, according to Date and Place._
A.D. Rome and Africa. Athens. Alexandria. Syria.
Western
Provinces.
150 [Aristides
130];
[Quadratus];
_Justin?_
150;
_Tatian_;
_Athenagoras_;
_Hermias?_
200 _Tertullian_; Clement 190 _Theophilus_
_Minucius 180
Felix?_
230
Cyprian; Origen 240
Commodian
300 _Arnobius_ [Methodius];
_Lactantius_ _Eusebius_
Jul. Athanasius Chrysostom
Firmicus;
Ambrose;
Prudentius
400 Orosius; _Augustin_ _Cyril_ Jerome?
Salvian Theodoret
N. B. The names in brackets are of authors whose apologies are almost
wholly lost; those in italics are the ones which alone are usually
mentioned in a list of apologists. To the above ought perhaps to have been
added for completeness, Maternus, A.D. 350; Ephraim the Syrian; and
Apollinaris of Asia Minor, who replied to Julian. The names marked with a
note of interrogation denote those in reference to which the reader may
demur to the classification. Justin Martyr wrote at Rome; but he wrote in
Greek, and was a Greek philosopher in spirit. Of Hermias little is known.
Jerome lived much in Syria, and leaned to the Syrian school of exegesis,
so that he has been classed with the Syrian church, though his intimacy
with Augustin and his writing in Latin might rather have caused him to be
classed with the western. Also Minucius Felix ought perhaps rather to be
classed with the Roman than the African church.
-------------------------------------
We shall next state the purpose of the treatises of those Apologists,
whose names are printed in italics in the table.
The first group consists of Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Hermias, and
Theophilus; the first three of whom may be considered to express the
defence of Christian philosophers, who were striving to explain the nature
of Christianity, partly with a view to plead for toleration, partly to
make converts.
Justin has left two apologies; one against the Jews, the other against the
heathens; (a second against the heathens is a fragment.) In both he
adopted the same plan, of first repelling prejudices, and then assaulting
his opponent. That which is directed against the Jews is analysed in
Kaye’s _Justin_, c. xi. In that which was directed against the heathens,
he first repelled the charges made against Christians, such as atheism,
Thyestean banquets, and treason against the state; and next, those made
against Christianity, especially those which related to its late
introduction, the person of Christ, and the doctrine of the resurrection.
In proceeding to assault heathenism, he endeavoured to show that it did
not possess religious truth, and claimed that the points of agreement with
Christian truth were borrowed; and after having thus shown the superiority
of Christianity to heathenism, he endeavoured to show its divinity, by the
internal evidence of its doctrines and effects, and by the external
evidence of miracles and prophecies.
Tatian’s treatise in substance was an invective against the pagans, on the
absurdity and iniquity of the pagan theology and its recent origin, with a
running comparison between it and Christianity.
The object of Athenagoras was to plead for toleration; and consequently he
employed himself in vindicating the Christians from various charges, such
as incest, Thyestean banquets; and retaliated the charges on the heathen.
The little work of Hermias, the date of which is uncertain, (see Lardner,
_Cred._ ch. xxv. and Cave, _Hist. Lit._ lxxxi. is a kind of sermon on St.
Paul’s words, “The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” In an
amusing manner, not unlike Lucian, he criticised the heathen philosophy,
arguing its falsehood from the contradictory opinions held in it.
The form of Theophilus’s work _Ad Autolycum_ is not unlike some of those
which have preceded. Indeed the form was suggested by circumstances; being
a defence of Christianity against particular charges, and the retaliation
of similar ones on the heathens. He drew out the attributes of the true
God, b. i; and afterwards exhibited the falsehood of the heathen religion
and history, b. ii; defending Christians from the absurd charges made
against them; and attempting to show the originality and antiquity of the
Hebrew history and chronology, b. iii.
-------------------------------------
The next group of Apologists, which comprises the writers of the African
church, Tertullian and Minucius Felix, differs from the last in spirit,
though resembling them in purpose. It is the defence made by rhetoricians
instead of philosophers. The purpose too, like that of the preceding
Apologists, is partly to effect conviction, partly to obtain toleration;
but there is a consciousness of the presence of danger, hardly perceivable
in the former writers. We feel, as we read these early African writers,
that they write like men who felt themselves in the presence of
persecution, and who were brought more nearly than the former writers into
the face of their foe.
Tertullian’s Tract, which is analysed both by Mr. Woodham in his edition
of it, and by Mr. T. Chevallier in his translation of it, is chiefly
defensive. He claims toleration, ch. i-vii; refutes the miscellaneous
charges against Christianity, ch. x-xxvii; and the charge of treason
(xxviii-xxxvii); explains the nature of Christianity (xvii-xxiii); and
compares it with philosophy, ch. xlv-xlvii.
The work of Minucius Felix is a dialogue between a heathen, Cæcilius, and
a Christian, Octavius. The heathen opens by denying a Providence; next
inveighs against the Christians, by a series of charges such as were named
in Note 15; and then attacks the Christian doctrines and condition. The
Christian Octavius is made to answer each point successively.
-------------------------------------
In passing now from the African school of Apologists to the Alexandrian,
we leave the rhetoricians, and meet with the philosophers, Clement and
Origen. Clement precedes Tertullian by a few years; Origen succeeds
Minucius Felix.
Clement, in part of his _Stromata_, and in his _Cohortatio_, has expressed
the spirit of his apologetic; which resembles those of the first group, in
admitting the value of heathen philosophy as a preparation for
Christianity, and claims that the Hebrews are the source of philosophy,
and that Christianity is the full satisfaction for those who sought
knowledge.
The spirit and details of Origen’s defence have been so fully given in
Lecture II. and Note 14, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon the
subject. His apology marks a further step. Tertullian replied to the
prejudices of the vulgar, and M. Felix to the scepticism of the educated,
which formed two elements in the heathen reaction of the second century.
Origen furnished the reply to the attack made by the heathen philosophy.
It is in reply to Celsus, who possessed a competent knowledge of
Christianity; and who, though writing earlier than the time when the
charges which Tertullian afterwards refuted were common, was too well
informed to have believed them, and opposed Christianity on deeper
grounds. Celsus stands later logically, though not chronologically, than
the authors of those frivolous charges, and midway between them and the
educated assailants of Christianity of the third century, such as
Porphyry. Origen’s defence too marks a similar advance, and, by exhibiting
sympathy with the very philosophy which Porphyry and others adopted, shows
the kind of defence which was thought likely to attract philosophic minds.
-------------------------------------
The chronology compels us to return to the African church, and introduces
us to two Apologists;—Arnobius and Lactantius; one of whom seems to have
written a little before Christianity had become a tolerated religion; the
latter a little afterwards.
The work of Arnobius is taken up, partly in repelling charges made against
the Christians, such as that the Christians do not worship, which are no
longer charges of the absurd kind made a century before, partly in
comparing Christianity and heathenism; and partly in offering the evidence
for Christianity. It is in this point that we find the peculiarity which
belongs to Arnobius. He is the first writer who lays firm stress on the
demonstrative character of the evidence of fact. In previous writers
Christianity had been proved by probability: he makes it to rest on the
evidence of certainty; and considers the fact of the revelation to
guarantee the contents of it.
The large work of Lactantius, the _Institutiones Divinæ_, is a work of
ethics as well as of defence. Christians have obtained protection, and
defence is becoming didactic: apology is expiring in instruction: all that
is now needed for the spread of Christianity is, that its nature should be
understood. The work is partly a work of religion, partly of philosophy,
partly of ethics; the object in each case being to show that Christianity
supplies the only true form in each department of thought.
-------------------------------------
The remaining Apologists may be grouped together, though they have no
point of union, except that their arguments are directed to the special
condition of heathenism; when, being no longer triumphant, it was standing
on the defensive, and, at the time of the two latter of the group, was
fast declining. They are, Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustin.