schools. See Lect. VI. and VII.
73 A brief view of the history of the Christian evidences will be found
in Note 49 appended to these Lectures.
74 Viz. toward the close of Lect. VIII.
75 The moral causes of unbelief have been frequently discussed, but the
intellectual rarely. Van Mildert has collected, in his _Boyle
Lectures_ (note to Lect. XXIV.), references to many valuable authors
where the moral sins of pride and impiety are discussed; and J. A.
Fabricius (_Delect. Argument._ 1725.) has devoted a chapter to the
literature of the subject (c. 36. p. 653.) Dr. Ogilvie wrote in 1783
a separate work on the causes of the recent unbelief; but the causes
alleged by him, though well treated in the details, are superficial.
A satisfactory discussion of this and cognate topics connected with
unbelief is given in a popular but instructive book, _Infidelity,
its aspects, causes, and agencies_, a Prize Essay (1853) of the
Evangelical Alliance, by the Rev. T. Pearson, Eyemouth, N. B.
76 Compare some remarks on this point in Whately’s _Rhetoric_ (part 2.
ch. I. § 2.)
77 Proof being of two kinds, viz. _antecedent probability_, εἰκός,
(Arist. Rhet. i. 2. § 15) which shows the _cause_; and _evidence_,
σημεῖον, which shows the _fact_; it is clear that the latter, if of
the positive kind, τεκμήριον, is demonstrative; but if merely of the
probable kind, or of the nature of circumstantial evidence, ἀνώνυμον
σημεῖον, requires the antecedent probability in addition for the
purpose of effecting conviction. Otherwise the evidence may seem to
be an accidental concatenation of circumstances, unless explained by
the antecedent probability that existed for the occurrence of the
main fact which the accumulation of circumstances is adduced to
attest.
78 See below, the commencement of Lect. V.; and on the influence of
social disaffection in causing modern unbelief, see Pearson’s
_Infidelity_, part 2. ch. 3. p. 373 seq.
79 Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837), a native of the trans-Apennine Roman
states. His works were published (1845-49), consisting of
philological pieces, poems, papers on philosophy, and letters. The
Italians consider him to have been a prodigy in philological power
that might have rivalled Niebuhr. As a poet he was one of the finest
of his country in the present century. His letters are very
classical in expression, and have been said to rival the
correspondence of the best ages of Italy. His fine mind was darkened
with the deepest shades of doubt. Shelley is the nearest English
representative. A masterly sketch of his mental and literary
character was given in the _Quarterly Review_ (No. 172. March 1850),
generally supposed to be from the pen of an English statesman well
known for his knowledge of the Italian literature and his sympathy
with constitutional government.
80 Carlo Bini (1806-1842), a native of Tuscany of less note, who
belonged to the Republican party in politics, and like Leopardi
burned with an unquenchable love of _la patria_. A monument with an
inscription by his friend Mazzini has been recently erected over his
grave at Livorno. The tender pathos shown in his poetry has been
compared to that of Jean Paul. One of his poems, _L’Anniversario
della Nascita_ 1833, expressive of deep and afflicting scepticism
and life-weariness, will be found in the Collection of Italian
Poetry edited by Arrivabene (1 vol. 12mo. 1855.)
81 Shelley’s mental character is discussed near the close of Lect. V.
82 Heinrich Heine (1799-1856), a poet who betook himself to Paris,
about 1830, in disgust with the political state of Germany. His
poetry was chiefly subsequent to this event. He had a mixture of
German imagination with French esprit. In tone he has been compared
to Byron. Vapéreau (_Diction. des Contemp._) compares his wit to
that of Swift or Rabelais. His collected works have been published
at Philadelphia; and his poems were translated into English by E. A.
Bowring, 1861. In later life Heine laid aside the extreme unbelief
of his earlier years. An article respecting him appeared in the
_Westminster Review_ (Jan. 1856.)
83 A brief statement of the difficulties raised on this point is given
by Professor Baden Powell in the article _Deluge_ in Kitto’s
Cyclopædia (first edition).
84 These discrepancies formed part of the subject of an early work of
De Wette (ueber die glaubwuerdigkeit der buccher der Chronik 1806),
and are noticed in his _Einleitung ins Alt. Test._ (See the chapters
which refer to these books); also in Dr. S. Davidson’s _Introduction
to the Old Testament_ 1862, vol. ii. _Chronicles_ § 6 and 8. Mr. F.
Newman, in his work, _The Hebrew Monarchy_, has made great use of
these difficulties for destructive criticism. Movers
(_Untersuchungen ueber die Chronik_ 1834), and C. F. Keil
(_Apologetischer Versuch ueber die Chronik_ 1833), endeavour to
remove them. Also see the translation of the Commentary of Keil and
Bertheau on Kings and Chronicles, the former of the two being based
on the work of the same author previously named.
85 J. A. Bengel (1689-1752), author of the _Gnomon of the New
Testament_ (translated, with Life prefixed to vol. iv.) Cfr. also
the article by Hartmann in Herzog’s _Real. Encyclopædie_ and Burt’s
_Life_ of him (translated 1837.) The labour of his life, to fix the
text of the New Testament, was prompted by the alarm which his pious
mind felt at the uncertainty thrown on the sacred books, the
inspiration of which he believed to extend to the words.
86 The denial of responsibility for belief may either be a denial of
all responsibility whatever, in consequence of the opinion that our
characters are formed for us by circumstances, or else a denial of
our responsibility for our belief, as distinct from our
responsibility for the agreement of our conduct with our belief; the
moral responsibility, according to this view, lying in our adherence
to a standard, irrespective of the truthfulness of the standard. The
former of these views is the fatalism advocated in the system called
(English) Socialism (See Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, i. 472
seq.); the latter has occasionally been imputed to teachers of the
utilitarian school of Ethics, perhaps with less justice; their
assertions in reference to it being intended to apply only to
political and not to moral responsibility.
87 Such an attitude of mind, for example, was presented in the
seventeenth century by Huet, and in the present by De Maistre. On
the former, see Bartholmess’ _Le Scepticisme Theologique_ (1852);
for reference to sources for the study of the latter, see Lect. VII.
Consult Morell’s _History of Philosophy_ (vol. ii. ch. 6. § 2) for
the history of this kind of philosophical scepticism.
88 Psalm lxxiii. 15-17.
89 See pp. 7, 12.
90 See pp. 8-12.
91 The names “lower” and “higher” for the two respective branches into
which literary criticism is divisible, are commonly used in all
modern German works of criticism.
92 See previous footnote.
93 The work which will most clearly explain my purpose in the following
history is Mr. J. D. Morell’s _Historical and Critical View of the
Speculative Philosophy of Europe in the nineteenth century_. (1847.)
It exhibits the influence of metaphysical philosophy on various
branches of knowledge. (See sect 1 and 5 of the introduction to vol.
i., and in vol. ii. ch. 9.) Also in his _Lectures on the
Philosophical Tendencies of the Age_ (1848), he treats the same
subject with direct reference to religion. Compare also on the same
points Cousin’s _Histoire de la Philosophie du 8__e__ siècle_, vol.
ii. leçon 30; Pearson on _Infidelity_, part ii. ch. 2. p. 340 seq.
94 Tennyson’s _In Memoriam_, § 94.
95 An instructive comparison of Milton, Cowper, and Wordsworth, which
will further illustrate this subject, may be found in _Macmillan’s
Magazine_ for Jan. 1862.
96 See p. 21.
97 The cause is, that whatever difficulties may be presented by it are
the statements of rival teaching opposed to the Christian;
conclusions, not premises; whereas those which arise from the
psychological branch are rival premises; not difference of belief
merely, but causes of such difference. Therefore the difficulties
suggested by Ontology belong to those described above in p. 21, 22.
Many illustrations of this branch may be found in Bartholmess’
_Hist. Crit. des Doctrines Religieuses de la Philosophie Moderne_,
1855.
98 The classification of faculties here intended, with their respective
functions, will be illustrated by referring to Morell’s _Hist. of
Phil._, vol. ii. p. 338; and his _Philosophy of Religion_, ch. 1.
and 2. The altered scheme given in his subsequent works on
Psychology (1853 and 1861,) ought also to be compared with the
former one. See also Coleridge’s _Aids to Reflection_, i. 168 seq.
The terms Sensationalist, Idealist, and Mystic, are nearly always
used in the present lectures in the sense in which Morell, following
Cousin, uses them; viz. to express those who place the ultimate test
of truth in sense, innate ideas, or feeling, respectively.
99 E.g. In the history of the eighteenth century in France. (See Lect.
V.) In estimating the effects of philosophical opinions, care must
be used, to distinguish the results which may be thought by
opponents to flow from such opinions by logical inference, from
those which have been proved by history to flow from them in fact.
Some portion of Cousin’s brilliant criticism, in the _Hist. de la
Phil. Française du_ 18e _siècle_, and in the _Ecole Sensualiste_, is
thought to be open to exception on this ground. It is from a
conviction of the importance of not attributing to a philosopher
that which we merely conceive to be a corollary, though a logical
one, from his opinions, that the writer has abstained from
introducing here into the text examples of the different views
sketched, and has treated the subject in this page broadly and
without minuteness. The religious results here stated to appertain
to particular metaphysical opinions must accordingly be regarded as
logical tendencies, not as necessary effects. The truth of opinions
must not be tested merely by supposed consequences, though the
practical value of such a test ought to be allowed its due weight.
100 A statement of the steps of proof similar to those described here,
by which we ascend to the knowledge of a Deity, is to be found in
the Sermons of the late lamented Rev. Shergold Boone (Sermons 2-7;
and especially 2 and 3; 1853). Compare also the steps of proof which
Rousseau gives in the Confession of the Savoyard Vicar of the
_Emile_, analysed in Lect. V.
101 These charges are frequently made indiscriminately against all who
hold that expedience is a sufficient explanation of the origin of
moral ideas. They were true in a great degree against Utilitarians
of the last century, together with some of those in the early years
of the present. But when applied at the present time, they only
indicate a tendency, not a fact; as may be seen in the delicate
manner in which Mr. J. S. Mill has explained the doctrine of
Utility, in a series of papers in _Fraser’s Magazine_ for 1861.
102 The first of these two views is seen in Kant, with whom the forms of
thought are only regulatively true; the second in Schelling and
Cousin. The references for studying Kant’s religious views will be
found in a note to Lecture VI.
103 The dangers of such a view arise from those results which have been
pointed out in Sir W. Hamilton’s _Dissertations_ (Diss. I. on
Cousin). In reference to the office of the intuition in science, Dr.
Whewell’s view, in the _Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences_, may
be adduced as one which appears to possess the advantage designed by
Schelling’s theory, and not be open to those criticisms which have
been directed against it. Possibly a true philosophy of the action
of the intellectual faculties in reference to religion might be
obtained by transferring to it the analysis which Dr. Whewell has
given of their action in reference to science. Dr. McCosh, in his
work on the _Intentions of the Mind_ (1859), has done much towards
effecting it.
104 In Morell’s _Philosophy of Religion_ (c. 5 and 6,) are remarks on
the relation of intuition to inspiration, to which attention may be
directed, but only in a _psychological_ point of view. Pious minds
that believe in miraculous inspiration will rightly hesitate before
holding any particular psychological theory of the field of its
operation; yet it would seem, if we may hazard a conjecture, that it
is the intuitive power of the mind which is mostly the organ to
which the divine revelation is unveiled, and on which the inspiring
influence acts. It is certain that we cannot understand the _modus
operandi_, but we may without irreverence humbly seek to discover
the field on which God’s Spirit condescends to operate. In this view
inspiration would be analogous to natural genius _psychologically_,
but wholly different _theologically_, inasmuch as all who believe in
its miraculous character must hold firmly that it is due to a
_supernatural_ elevation of this mental power by _immediate_
operation of divine agency, whereas the discoveries of ordinary
genius are due to the _unassisted_ and normal condition of the
faculty. Morell, in the passage referred to, will probably be
thought to be right in the psychological question, and wrong in the
theological.
105 The mysticism of the Quakers of the seventeenth century, and of
Swedenborg in the eighteenth, is of this character. The excessive
self-mortification of the Franciscan order in the middle ages may be
set down to the influence, perhaps not consciously analysed, of the
same standard used for guidance. On Mysticism, see Morell’s _History
of Philosophy_, ii. 332 seq. and 356 seq.; and his _Lectures on the
Philosophical Tendencies of the Age_ (Lect. III.); on Swedenborg,
see _National Review_ No. 12; and on mystics generally, consult the
interesting work of the lamented Rev. R. A. Vaughan, _Hours with the
Mystics_, 1856.
106 As in Spinoza, or the school of Schelling.
107 As in Herbert in the seventeenth century, and Theodore Parker in the
nineteenth. On the intuitional theology, see McCosh, _Divine
Government_, b. iv. ch. 2. § 4. (note.)
108 The above are only a very few instances, of which many will occur
hereafter; but they will sufficiently indicate that the French
infidelity is mostly connected with the appeal to the first test of
truth, sensation; German rationalism, the result of an appeal to an
intuitive faculty “transcending consciousness;” English deism, and
the earlier forms of German rationalism, the appeal to the ordinary
reason, as able to create religion for itself. The separate appeal
to feeling has generally, it will be perceived, caused too much
belief, instead of too little; mysticism instead of scepticism.
109 This was the view presented in the teaching of Cousin and the
Eclectic school of France. Many of the younger thinkers of Europe
now consider that the history of philosophy constitutes the whole of
philosophy, and is not merely, as here maintained, the preliminary
to it. This new view is probably unconsciously derived from Hegel,
and is the residuum left by his philosophy. Two able living French
critics, Renan and Scherer, have so very clearly expressed this view
of the function of philosophy, that it may be well to quote their
words (see Note 9); the more so, as this subject will be named again
in Lect. VII. Renan has also expressed the same ideas in the Revue
des deux Mondes (Jan. 15, 1860), _De la Metaphysique et de son
avenir_.
110 It is not from any wish to evade the real question that the writer
thus avoids taking a side in the metaphysical dispute. His object is
to explain the various effects of metaphysical theories on religious
belief; and while considering that the respective evil effects of
these systems are a logical corollary from them, as well as an
historical result, he is prepared to admit, as previously remarked,
that men are sometimes better than their systems, and do not always
draw the logical conclusions from their own premises; and therefore
he has not thought it right to make these lectures a direct argument
on behalf of some favourite metaphysical system, and attack on some
rival one. In such case, the history would lose its independent
character. While therefore he has never concealed his opinions on
the subject of religion, he has thought it more proper not to
obtrude, except indirectly, his opinions on that of metaphysics.
111 This is the question at issue between modern Positivists and their
opponents. Comte declared the possibility of discovering the fixed
laws on which society depends as really as the physical ones of
matter. Mr. Mill, in his account of the logic of history (_Logic_,
b. vi. c. 4. (6-10)), lays down more maturely the theory of such a
process. On the contrary, Mr. Kingsley, in his inaugural lecture at
Cambridge, 1861, asserts the very opposite position; and, in his
wish to elevate the influence of individual men on the course of
events, almost reduces history to a series of biographies.
112 The kind of analysis here alluded to may be illustrated by referring
to one of the _Essays_ of Mr. D. Masson, in which he has compared in
a very striking manner Shakspeare and Goëthe, by regarding their
respective works as reflecting the mental peculiarity of each
writer. He considers the meditative melancholy of Shakspeare’s
youth, as expressed in his Sonnets, to be the clue to the reflective
analysis that in later life could depict the doubts of Hamlet.
113 Christian Maerklin (1807-1849), a fellow student of Strauss at
Tübingen, whose views were unsettled, partly by a tone like that of
the Renaissance derived from the contrast of classic and Christian
culture, and partly by the philosophical speculations of the time.
He embraced pantheism and the mythical idea of Christianity. For ten
years after 1840 he undertook ministerial work, and then left the
church, and till his death in 1849 devoted himself with assiduity to
the business of education. A short memoir of him was written by
Strauss in 1851, _C. Maerklin, ein Lebens-und-Character-Bild aus der
Gegenwart_; a brief review of which is given in the _National
Review_, No. 7.
114 Sterling (1806-1844), a clergyman, curate to archdeacon Hare. His
works were edited, with a memoir prefixed, by the archdeacon in
1848; and a life written of him by Carlyle (1851.)
115 Blanco White (1775-1841), a Spanish priest, who became a protestant,
and a refugee in England. He was much respected in Oxford, and the
University gave him a degree. He afterwards turned unitarian, and
perhaps at last deist. His life was published in 1845; and his
mental character analysed in the _Quarterly Review_ No. 151, and the
_Christian Remembrancer_ vol. 10.
116 Mr. F. Newman. See Lect. VIII.
117 See further remarks concerning the purpose of the course of Lectures
in Lect. VIII.
118 John xx. 26-29.
119 E.g. Mr. J. J. Conybeare (1824), on the _History and Limits of the
Secondary Interpretation of Scripture_; Dr. Burton (1829), _The
Heresies of the Apostolic Age_; Dr. Hampden (1832), _The Scholastic
Philosophy in relation to Christian Theology_; as well as several
works which investigate doctrines historically, such as the Lectures
on the Atonement by Dr. Thomson (1853), by Dr. Hessey on the Sabbath
(1860).
120 See above, p. 8.
121 By Dr. Burton in 1829, _An Inquiry into the Heresies of the
Apostolic Age._
122 Burton was such a careful student, that he hardly omitted anything
on the subject which had been published up to his time. Subsequent
investigations have added little material directly for the knowledge
of Gnosticism, but much for a better appreciation of those sources
from which it sprung. The oriental philosophy, as is shown in note 3
to Lect. I, is much better known; in like manner the Neo-Platonic.
The Jewish Cabbala has also been made known by A. Franck (_Memoires
sur la Cabbale_). The speculations too of the new Tübingen school,
of which Baur’s work on _Gnosis_, 1835, is an example, have been
specially directed to the study of the _origines_ of the Christian
church and of Gnostic heresy, and however unsatisfactory in results,
present much valuable research. Kurtz in his _Kirchengeschichte_ §
48-50, and Hase, _Id._ § 75-82, refer to several other monographs of
the same kind. See also the discussion on Gnostic sects in Professor
Norton’s _Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels_, vol. ii.
123 Such instances are seen in the Renaissance, in the state of France
during the eighteenth century, and in some of the writings of the
English deists and German critics, as will be shown in subsequent
lectures. A general view is given, in the introduction to
Houtteville’s _Le Christianisme prouvé par des faits_, of “the
method of the principal authors for and against Christianity from
its beginning,” (translated 1739.) Hase also quotes a work of D.
Baumgarten-Crusius, De Scriptoribus sæc. II. qui novam relig.
impugnarunt, 1845.
124 There are four sources of information in reference to the opinions
of the heathens concerning Christianity; viz. (1) the slight notices
which occur in heathen literature, on which see note 12; (2) the
works written expressly against Christianity, which are sufficiently
analysed in the text and foot-notes; (3) the special replies to
these attacks, on which see notes 13, 17, 19; (4) the general
treatises on evidence in the early fathers, on which see note 49.
The recent publication of Pressensé’s work, 2e série, t. 2, where
the analysis of the two latter sources is ably executed, renders
unnecessary the publication of an analysis of each. Several of them
are also analysed in Schramm, _Analysis Patrum_, 1782.
125 It has been recently made a matter of dispute whether Plato’s own
description of the teaching of the Sophists is not rendered
untrustworthy by these faults. See Grote’s _History of Greece_, vol.
viii. ch. 67.
126 These tendencies are discussed so fully and with such great learning
by Neander (_Kirchengeschichte_, vol. i. Introduction), and by
Pressensé, _Hist. de l’Eglise Chrétienne_, (2e série, t. ii. ch. 1),
to whom I am largely indebted, that it is unnecessary to quote the
original sources. Neander exhibits an analogous process in the
Jewish religion, in sects of the later times of the nation. See also
Döllinger’s _Judenthum und Heidenthum_ (translated 1862.)
127 The mental character of Lucretius has been well analysed by Mr.
Sellar, in the volume of _Oxford Essays_, 1855.
128 Pressensé (ut sup. 2e série, t. ii. 77 seq.) has ably sketched the
character of Lucian. His utter scepticism is seen in the Ζεὺς
τραγῳδός (47-49).
129 Instances, with references, may be seen in the introductory chapter
in Neander, p. 18 seq.
130 The Greek literature offers the opportunity for studying the whole
process. See Grote, i. ch. 16, previously quoted.
131 The character Cæcilius, in the dialogue of Minucius Felix, is made
to express this view, (c. 8. and elsewhere.) A useful modern edition
of this dialogue is given by H. A. Holden, 1853.
132 This reaction deserves to be made the subject of special study.
Pressensé is one of the few writers who have pointed out its
importance, (2e série, t. ii. ch. 1.) Also compare the remarks in
Benjamin Constant’s posthumous work _Du Polytheisme Romain_, 1833.
(t. ii. I. 12, 13, 15.) Kurtz refers on this subject to Tzchirner’s
_der Fall des Heidenthum_, i. 404, (1829.); E. Kritzler’s
_Helden-zeiten des Christenthum_, vol. i. (1856), and Vogt’s
_Neo-Platonismus und Christenthum_ (1836.) Also Cfr. Tzchirner’s
_Apologetik_ (1804.) c. 2, parts 2 and 3.