concerning them Fabricius, _Biblioth. Græc._ v. 500, (ed. Harles);
Donaldson, _Gr. Lat._ ch. 54, § 2; and concerning his opinions,
Neander’s _Kirchengesch_. I. 177. Mr. G. Long has recently
translated the Meditations into English. The philosophy of the Roman
Stoics, of which M. Aurelius is one of the best types, is briefly
but excellently treated by Sir A. Grant in the _Oxford Essays_ for
1858. Also consult Ritter’s _History of Philosophy_, vol. iv. b. 12,
ch. 3, and Neander’s paper on the relation of Greek Ethics to
Christianity in the _Zeitschrift für Christliche Wissenchaft und
Christliches Leben_ (1850,) translated in the American _Bibliotheca
Sacra_ for 1853.
134 Pressensé even suggests (2e. série, t. ii. p. 62) that the ultimate
result was almost the nirvana of Budhism. It will be observed, that
the view taken in the text concerning the Neo-Platonic philosophy,
for which I am largely indebted to Pressensé, is different from that
which regards it as monotheism, and which has been made popular by
Mr. Kingsley’s novel, _Hypatia_, and by his lectures on _the Schools
of Alexandria_ (Lect. 3), 1854.
135 Ritter happily calls this philosophy Neo-Pythagoreanism, as the
former was Neo-Platonism.
136 E.g. the Alexander of Pontus, whom Lucian holds up to ridicule. On
Apollonius of Tyana, see a subsequent note.
137 Crescens is named in Justin Martyr (_Apolog._ II. 3), who wrote
against his attack; Tatian (_Oral. adv. Grac._ c. 3); Eusebius
(_Eccl. Hist._ iv. 16). The last, on the strength of Tatian, accuses
him of causing Justin’s death.
138 Cornelius Fronto is referred to by Minucius Felix (_Octav._ ch. 9
and 31), as having charged incestuous banquets on the Christians.
Tzchirner (_Opusc. Acad._ 1829. p. 294) conjectures that his work
may have been a legal speech against some Christian, which implied a
defence of the imperial persecution. Part of Fronto’s works have
been found during the present century, and edited with a
dissertation on his life and writings by Angelo Mai. (On his work
against Christianity, see p. 57 of the dissertation.) A brief
account of them may be found in Smith’s Biographical Dictionary sub
_Fronto_.
139 Lucian probably lived from about A.D. 125 to 200. Consult the
account given by Donaldson (_Gr. Lit._ ch. 54, § 3 and 4) of his
life, opinions, and works, where a comparison is drawn between him
and Voltaire: also Mr. Dyer’s article _Lucianus_ in Smith’s
Biographical Dictionary; also Fabricius’ _Bibliotheca Græca_, v. 340
(ed. Harles); Lardner’s _Collection of Jewish and Heathen
Testimonies_, Works, vol. viii. ch. 19. The satire referred to above
is entitled Περὶ τῆς Περεγρίνου τελευτῆς.
140 We learn from other writers that Peregrinus was a real character;
but Aulus Gellius (xii. 11), gives a much more favourable character
of him than Lucian.
141 The passage (of which this is Tzchirner’s paraphrase) is: Πεπείκασι
γὰρ αὑτοὺς οἲ κακοδαίμονες τὸ μὲν ὅλον ἀθάνατοι ἔσεσθαι καὶ
βιώσεσθαι τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον, παρ᾽ ὅ καὶ καταφρονοῦσι τοῦ θανάτου καὶ
ἑκόντες αὑτοὺς ἐπιδιδόασιν οἱ πολλοί; ἕπειτα δὲ ὁ νομοθέτης ὁ πρῶτος
ἕπεισεν αὐτοὺς ὡς ἀδελφοὶ πάντες εἷεν ἀλλήλων, ἐπειδὰν ἅπαξ
παραβάντες Θεοὺς μὲν τοὺς Ἑλληνικοὺς ἀπαρνήσωνται, τὸν δὲ
ἀνεσκολοπισμένον ἐκεῖνον σοφιστὴν αὐτῶν προσκυνῶυσι καὶ κατὰ τοὺς
ἐκείνου νόμους βιῶσι. Pereg. Prot. § 13.
142 Cfr. Pereg. Prot. § 11 and 12.
143 Bp. Pearson considered (_Vindic. Ignat._ part. ii. 6,) that an
allusion is made to the death of Ignatius, (Cfr. Le Moyne, _Varia
Sacra_ (pref.) 1694, for a somewhat similar argument in reference to
Polycarp.) A. Planck in his _Lucian und Christenthum_ (part i.) in
_Stud. und Krit._ 1851, the references to which are given in note 12
of these lectures, tries to show that Lucian alludes even to
Ignatius’s letters. If he does not succeed in establishing this
point, he at least (part iii.) makes Lucian’s knowledge of Christian
literature extremely probable.
144 These are enumerated by A. Planck, (id. part ii.)
145 Huet thinks the date was subsequent to A.D. 246. (_Origeniana_ i. c.
3, § 11, ed. 1668.)
146 There is a doubt whether the Celsus against whom Origen wrote is the
friend to whom Lucian has addressed his life of the magician
Alexander of Abonoteichus. The arguments on this question are stated
and weighed in Neander’s _Kirchengeschichte_, vol. i. 169, and
Baur’s _Geschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte_, p. 371. Both
conclude that the persons were different. The evidence of their
oneness is chiefly Origen’s conjecture that they were the same
person (Cont. Celsum. iv. 36.) The evidence against it is, (1) that
Lucian’s friend attacked magical rites; the Celsus of Origen seems
to have believed them; (2) that Lucian’s friend was probably an
Epicurean, the other Celsus a Platonist or Eclectic; (3) that the
former is praised for his mildness, the latter shows want of
moderation. Pressensé nevertheless (ut sup. vol. ii. p. 105) regards
them as the same person.
147 B. i. c. 28. The references are made to the chapters in the
Benedictine edition by De la Rue (Paris, 1733.) The earlier part of
b. i. is miscellaneous in nature and seems prefatory; and it is not
easy to determine the relation of Origen’s remarks in it to the
arrangement of Celsus’s book.
148 Speaking generally, B. i. ch. 27, 28, 32, may be taken as the one,
and the rest of b. i., together with b. ii. as the other.
149 B. ii. § 32.
150 B. i. 28, 32-35.
151 B. i. 37, 58, 66.
152 B. i. 38, 68.
153 B. i. 57; ii. 9, &c.
154 B. ii. 21.
155 B. ii. 24.
156 B. ii. 16.
157 B. iii. 38.
158 B. iii. 59, 55, 57, 78.
159 B. iii. § 1 and elsewhere.
160 B. iii. § 5.
161 B. iii. § 5.
162 B. i. 17, 18; i. 22.
163 B. iv. 71; vi. 62.
164 B. iv. 48.
165 B. vii. 3; viii. 45.
166 B. vii. 14.
167 B. iv. 22, 23.
168 B. iv. 74; vi. 49, &c.
169 B. vi. 60.
170 B. iii.
171 B. v. vi. vii.
172 B. iii. 10.
173 B. iii. 5, 14.
174 B. iii. § 55; viii. 73.
175 B. viii. 69.
176 B. viii. 69.
177 B. iii. 44, 50.
178 B. iii. 59, 62, 74.
179 B. iii. 55; viii. 37.
180 B. vii. 9; i. 2; i. 9; iii. 39; vi. 10.
181 B. vi. 15; vi. 22, 58, 62; v. 63; vi. 1.
182 B. iii. 22; vii. 28-30.
183 B. iv. 37; vi. 49.
184 B. iv. 14; v. 2; vii. 36.
185 B. iv. 62, 70.
186 B. v. 14; vii. 28, 36, vi. 78.
187 B. iv. 74, 76, 23.
188 B. iii. 65.
189 B. v. 14, 15.
190 B. vii. 68; viii. (2-14) 35, 36.
191 B. viii. 2.
192 B. iv. 99.
193 B. iv. 3, 7, 18.
194 B. iv. 74.
195 On the alteration in the attacks, Cfr. Gerard (of Aberdeen),
_Compendium of Evidences_, 1828 (part ii. ch. 1.)
196 Porphyry lived from about A.D. 233 to 305. For his life and writings
see Holstenius _de Vit. Porphyr._ (1630); Fabric. _Bibl. Græc._ v.
725. (ed. Harles); Lardner’s Works, viii. 37; Donaldson’s _Gr. Lit._
ch. 53, § 7. For his attack on Christianity consult Neander’s
_Kirchengesch._ i. 290; Pressensé ii. 156.
197 His own words, quoted in Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._ iii. 19), have been
thought to imply this, but seem merely to state his acquaintance in
youth with Origen. See Holsten. _Vit. Porphyr._ p. 16.
198 Cousin (Pref. to Edition of Abélard _Sic et Non_, p. 61, note 46,)
considers that a passage which Boethius quoted from Porphyry was the
means of reviving philosophical speculation on this point.
199 He seems especially to have felt the difficulty which was before
noticed as marking one type of religious opinion, the craving for a
theology which rested on some divine authority, revelation from the
world invisible, (Cfr. Augustin’s criticism on him in _De Civ. Dei._
x. ch. 9, 11, 26, 28); and hence he drew such a system from the real
or pretended answers of oracles, in his περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων
φιλοσοφίας, of which fragments exist in Eusebius and Augustin
(Fabric. _Bibl. Gr._ v. 744). Heathens, it would seem, had consulted
oracles on this very subject of Christianity; and it is these, the
genuineness of which may be doubted, that he uses. His aim seems to
have been to support the existing religious system; and for this
purpose he favoured the alliance with the priestly system, and the
institution of religious rites. See Neander _Kirchengesch._ i. 293.
200 On this work, κατὰ Χριστιανῶν, see Holsten. (_Vita Porphyr._ c. x.)
who quotes at length from the Fathers the principal passages in
which allusion to it is made.
201 Omitting allusion to the references concerning the canon furnished
in older works, e.g. of Cosin, Dupin, Jones, Lardner, Michaelis,
some of which were written in reference to the controversy between
the Romanists and Reformed, others between the Christians and
freethinkers, we may at least name Moses Stuart’s work on the _Canon
of the Old Testament_, and Credner _Zur Geschichte des Kanons_ with
reference to the New; (the former is apologetic, the latter
independent and slightly rationalistic, but full of learning;) and
especially the work on the _Canon of the New Testament_ by Mr. B. F.
Westcott (1855), and the article on _Canon_ by him in Smith’s
Biblical Dictionary, where references to fuller literary materials
are given.
202 Hieronymi _Opera_, (at the end of the Proem. of the Commentary on
Galatians) vol. 4. part i. p. 223, Benedictine edition of Martianay,
1706; also Galat. ii. 11 (id. p. 244); also at the end of book xiv.
(Isaiah liii.) vol. iii. p. 388; also Ep. 74 to Augustin (id. iv.
part ii. 619, 622.)
203 Euseb. _Eccl. Hist._ vi. c. 19 (ed. Gaisford, p. 414) gives a long
extract from Porphyry. Of the second book nothing is known.
204 On the school of Alexandria see H. E. F. Guericke _Schola quæ Alex.
floruit_, 1825 (p. 51-81); Matter’s _Essai sur l’école
d’Alexandrie_, 1840; Neander’s _Kirchengesch._ II. 908 seq. 1196
seq. On the allegorical method of interpretation adopted by Origen,
see Huet’s _Origeniana_ II. quæst. 13 (vol. i. 170); Conybeare’s
Bampton Lecture for 1824 (Lect. 2-4); R. A. Vaughan’s _Essays and
Remains_ (Essay I); and an article in the _North British Review_,
No. 46, August 1855. Also compare a note on systems of
interpretation in Lect. VI.
205 Euseb. Præp. i. 9; x. 9; which passages merely express the hostility
of Porphyry.
206 In Jerome’s Proem. to Daniel are four passages. (See Works, vol.
iii. p. 1073-4.)
207 See Jerome. Comm. on Matt. xxiv. 15 (b. iv. vol. iv. p. 115).
208 As early as the time of Spinoza, from whose work, the Theologicus
Politicus, Collins may perhaps have indirectly derived hints; doubts
of the authenticity of parts were expressed; and the inquiry was
pursued by Michaelis and Eichhorn: but the modern criticism on it
dates especially from Berthold (1806), who impugned its
authenticity. Bleek (1822), De Wette, Von Lengerke of Königsberg
(1835), Maurer (1838), more recently Hitzig (1850), and Lücke
(1852), followed on the same side. The English theologian, Dr.
Arnold, adopted the same view. The contrary opinion has been
maintained by Hengstenberg (1831), Hävernich (1832), Keil (1853);
Delitzch (in Herzog’s Encycl. 1854), Auberlen (1857), by Moses
Stuart, and by Dr. S. Davidson (Introduction to the Old Testament,
1856). Hengstenberg, Hävernich, and Auberlen are translated. The
first of these three is valuable, especially for the literary and
exegetical questions; the second as a controversial commentary; the
third for tracing the organic unity of the book.
209 The importance attached to the occurrence of Greek words is much
over-estimated. They can only be shown to be four, which occur in
ch. iii. 6, 7, 10; viz., קיתרה κιθάρα, סמבא σαμβυκή, סומפניה
συμφωνία, פסלתרין ψαλτήριον; all of which relate to musical
instruments, not unlikely to be introduced by commerce, and which
would naturally be called by their foreign names. Some of the
writers named in a preceding note have examined incidentally the
character of the Hebrew and Chaldee of Daniel, and consider that
both are similar to those of works confessedly of the age of Daniel;
and that the Chaldee is separated by a chasm from that of the
earliest Targums. Professor Pusey delivered a lecture on the subject
in the university, containing the results of his own recent studies,
in the summer of the present year, which will form one of a printed
course of lectures on Daniel. See also an article by the Rev. J.
McGill in the Journal of Sacred Literature, Jan. 1861.
210 E.g. the wars of the kings of the north and of the south, c. xi.
211 Viz., till about B.C. 164.
212 He seems also to have entered into some examination of the specific
prophecies; for he objects to the application of the words “the
abomination of desolation” to other objects than that which he
considers its original meaning. See Hieronym. on Matt. xxiv. 15, the
reference to which is given in a preceding note.
213 A few other traces of Porphyry’s views remain, which are of less
importance, and are levelled against parts of the New Testament:
e.g. the change of purpose in our blessed Lord (John vii. [Hieronym.
vol. iv, part ii. p. 521 (_Dial. adv. Pelag._) _Ep._ (101) _ad
Pammach_. Several are given in Holsten. (_Vit. Porphyr._ p. 86)]),
the reasons why the Old Testament was abrogated if divine,
[Augustin. _Epist._ (102, olim 49, Benedict. ed. 1689) vol. ii. p.
274, where six questions are named, some of which come from
Porphyry:] the question what became of the generations which lived
before Christianity was proclaimed, if Christianity was the only way
of salvation; objections to the severity of St. Peter in the death
of Ananias; and the inscrutable mystery of an infinite punishment in
requital for finite sin. (Aug. _Retract._ b. ii. c. 31. vol. i. p.
53, concerning Matt. vii. 2.)
214 Hierocles’ work was called Λόγοι φιλαλήθεις πρὸς τοὺς Χριστιανούς.
Our knowledge of it depends upon the refutation which Eusebius wrote
of it; and upon passages in Lactantius (_Instit._ v. 2, and _De
Mort. Persecut._ 16.) Concerning Hierocles see Bayle’s _Dictionary,
sub voc._ (notes); Fabric. _Bibl. Gr._ i. 792. note; Cave’s _Hist.
Lit._ i. 131. ii. 99; Lardner’s Works, vol. viii. ch. 39. § 1-4, and
Neander’s _Kirchengesch._ i. 296.
215 On Apollonius of Tyana, see Lardner’s Works, vol. viii. ch. 39. § 5,
6. Ritter’s _History of Philosophy_ (vol. iv, b. xii. ch. 7), and
especially the monograph by C. Baur of Tübingen, _Apollonius von
Tyana and Christus oder das Verhaeltniss des Pythagoreismus zum
Christenthum_ (1832); also the Abbé Houtteville’s Essay affixed to
the _Discourse on the Method of the Principal Authors for and
against Christianity_, translated 1739; and the article _Apollonius_
by Professor Jowett in Smith’s Biographical Dictionary.
216 He was probably midway between Pythagoras and the Alexander named by
Lucian.
217 It was written about A.D. 210, at the request of Julia Domna, and is
entitled τὰ ἐς τὸν Τυανέα Ἀπολλώνιον. On this life by Philostratus
see Fabric. _Bibl. Gr._ v. 541; the above-named works of Houtteville
and Baur; Donaldson’s _Gr. Lit._ ch. lii. § 7; Pressensé ii. 144
seq.; and a recent translation of Philostratus with remarks by A.
Chassang, “Le Marveilleux dans l’Antiquité” (1862).
218 Lardner and Ritter think that Philostratus did not write with a
polemical reference to Christianity, but Baur concludes otherwise.
Dean Trench has made a few remarks in reference to this question
(_Notes to Miracles_, p. 62).
219 On Iamblichus’s Life of Pythagoras, see Fabricius’s Bibl. Gr. v.
764; Lardner viii. 39. § 7, who however concludes in this case, as
in that of Philostratus, that the book was not designed against
Christianity.
220 Charles Blount in 1680. See Lect. IV.
221 A.D. 313.
222 A.D. 361-3.
223 Κατὰ Χριστιανῶν. See Fabric. _Bibl. Gr._ vii. 738; Lardner viii. 46.
§ 2, and 4; Donaldson iii. 303. Fragments of it are preserved in
Cyril’s reply. The Marquis d’Argens, at the court of Frederick the
Great of Prussia, translated and tried to unite them. _Défense du
Paganisme par l’Empéreur Julian_, 1764.
224 On the life and reign of Julian, see Gibbon (_Decline and Fall_, c.
22-24); Fabricii _Lux Evangelii_, 1721, c. 14, where the edicts
which refer to Christianity are collected; Lardner viii. 46; Abbé de
la Bletterie’s _Vie de Julien_; Neander, _Kirchengesch_ iii. 76. and
188, who also wrote in 1812 a monograph on the subject; Wiggers in
Illgen’s _Hist. Zeitschr._ 1837; Milman’s _Hist. of Christianity_
iii. 6. On Julian’s works see Fabric. _Bibl. Gr._ vi. 719 seq.;
Donaldson iii. 57. § 6.
225 Wyttenbach _Opusc._ i. 6; Donaldson iii. p. 307.
226 By Strauss, _Der Romantiker auf dem Throne des Caesaren oder Julian
der abtruennige_ 1847.
227 There are some good remarks on Julian in Waddington’s Church
History, ch. viii.
228 He also made the well-known attempt to rebuild the temple of
Jerusalem. On the alleged miracle which prevented the execution of
the scheme, see Warburton’s works, vol. iv., Lardner, vol. viii. ch.
46. § 3, and Milman’s note to Gibbon (c. 23.) Warburton believes the
miracle; but Lardner hesitates. The original passages which refer to
it are Amm. Marcell. xxiii. ch. 1; Ambr. _Ep._ xi. 2; Chrysost.
_adv. Jud. et Gent._; Greg. _Naz. Orat._ 4. _adv. Jul._
229 E.g. Ep. to Ecdidius (Ep. 9, Spanheim’s edition, 1696); Decree to
the Alexandrians (Ep. 26, 51); Ep. to Arsacius (49).
230 Cyril, adv. Jul. B. iii. and iv.
231 B. iv.
232 B. ii.
233 B. iii.
234 B. iii.
235 B. v.
236 B. v. and vii.
237 B. vi.
238 B. x.
239 B. vii. and x.
240 B. viii.
241 B. vi.
242 B. x.
243 Greg. Naz. Op. i. Orat. 4 and 5.
244 Q. Aurelius Symmachus was deputed by the senate to remonstrate with
Gratian on the removal of the altar of Victory (A.D. 382) from the
council hall; and afterwards, when appointed (384) præfect of the
city, he addressed a letter to Valentinian requiring the restoration
of the pagan deities to their former honours. Both Symmachus’s
address and St. Ambrose’s refutation are given in Cave’s _Lives of
Fathers_ (Life of Ambrose, § 3. p. 576.)
245 Augustin refutes this objection in several places of the first five
books in the _De Civ. Dei._
246 The work of Cosmas Indicopleustes in the middle of the sixth century
is designed to show the falsehood of the Ptolemaic system of
astronomy in assuming the world to be a sphere, and proves the
continuance of speculation on the harmony of science and revelation.
See Donaldson’s _Gr. Lit._ III. 59. § 3.
247 P. 14-17.
248 This appears from a letter of Porphyry to his wife Marcella,
discovered by Angelo Mai, and edited at Milan, 1816, in which his
personal religious aspirations are seen.
249 See this discussed towards the close of Lect. VIII.
250 It is obvious that this belief blunted in some degree the force of
arguments built upon miracles and prophecy: this circumstance
explains the comparative absence of these arguments in the early
apologies against the heathens. The reality however both of miracles
and prophecy is always implied; and occasionally the direct appeal
to them is used. The apologists were thus compelled, even if no
other reason founded deeper in the philosophy of evidence had
inclined them to do so, to lay stress on what would now be called
the argument from internal evidence for the truth of Christianity.
The Hulsean Prize Essay for 1852, by Mr. W. J. Bolton, contains a
useful account of the apologists, with extracts from their writings.
And Mr. H. A. Woodham, in the preface to his edition of Tertullian’s
Apology (1843), has made some very suggestive remarks. Both writers
show that the fathers use the argument from miracles more frequently
than had generally been supposed.
251 For the intellectual and social condition during this period,
consult Guizot’s _History of Civilization in France_; Hallam’s
_History of the Middle Ages_, ch. ix. part i.; and _History of
Literature_, ch. i. Also three works by Laurent, _Les Barbares et le
Catholicisme_, _La Papauté et l’Empire_, _La Féodalité et l’Eglise_.
252 See Lect. I. p. 7.
253 See Guizot’s _History of Civilization in Europe_, ch. vi. and x.;
Laurent, _La Reforme_, 1861 (p. 131-271.) The last-named work, to
which frequent reference will be made, is an able production by a
Professor (probably a freethinker) in the university of Ghent. It is
the eighth of a series of works, entitled, _Etudes de l’Histoire de
l’Humanité_, of which three were named in a previous note, and
contains a careful examination (1) of the reform, religious and
social, of the middle ages; (2) of heterodoxy, both as free thought
and incredulity, during the same period; (3) of the Renaissance; (4)
of the principles of the Reformation.
254 It has been conjectured that the name was probably derived from the
circumstance that it was the philosophy which arose in the various
_Scholæ_ which Charlemagne established throughout his empire; and
afterwards was that which existed in the scholæ or halls of the
mediæval universities. Brucker has discussed the previous history of
the word (_History of Critical Philosophy_, iii. 710; and Hauréau,
nearly repeating him, _Philosophie Scholastique_, i. 7, with a view
to show how it was used before it became changed into the meaning
just assigned to it). See also a few remarks by Saisset in the
_Revue des Deux Mondes_, 1850, vol. iii. p. 645.
255 It is called logic, if we denote that part of it which studies the
mode of investigation, and the comparative value of evidence in the
different fields of inquiry. It is the psychological branch of
metaphysics, if it explores the structure and functions of the mind,
ascertaining the subjective validity of the data employed in the
method which forms the subject matter of contemplation in logic. It
is the ontological branch, if it reaches to the still higher problem
of searching for the traces of objective reality, independent of the
act of human thought, which are involved in the data previously
examined.
256 The Διαλεκτικὴ of Plato, it is well known, was the method of
analysis by means of language, and comprised the field which his
successor Aristotle separated in two, viz. Διαλεκτικὴ, logic, the
inquiry concerning method; and Σοφία, metaphysics, the inquiry
concerning being. See Bp. Hampden’s article _Aristotle_ in the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_; Ritter, _History of Philosophy_ (English
translation), vol. ii. b. 8, c. 2 and 3; and vol. iii. c. 2.
257 Viz. antecedents in the mechanical class of sciences, types in the
zoological and botanical. The distinction is that which is indicated
by Mill under the names of “uniformities of causation,” and
“uniformities of coexistence.” See Mill’s _Logic_, vol. i. b. i. ch.
7, § 4; vol. ii. b. iii. ch. 22; b. iv. ch. 7. Compare also
Whewell’s _Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences_, vol. i. b. iii. c.
2. and b. viii.
258 This is the explanation of the fact already quoted from Cousin, that
the mediæval philosophy depended on a quotation made by Boëthius
from Porphyry.
259 Viz. Darwin’s Inquiry into the Origin of Species, 1859.
260 Inasmuch as the realist assumed that the innate ideas of the mind
gave a knowledge of real essences in nature.
261 “Neque enim quæro intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam,”
are the words of the realist Anselm (_Proslog._ I. p. 43. ed.
Gerberon.) “Dubitando ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem
percipimus,” are those of the nominalist Abélard. (_Sic et Non_, p.
16. ed. Cousin.)
262 The best modern work on scholasticism is the _Mémoire Couronné_, by
B. Hauréau, 2 vols. 1850, in which the various authors and schools
of thought are fully treated. Among older sources, the following are
important; Brucker, iii. 709-868; Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 237-79;
Ritter’s _Christliche Philosophie_; Buhle, _Geschichte der Neuern
Philosophie_, i. 810 seq.; Hampden’s _Bampton Lectures_ (I. and
II.), and the article by him on _Aquinas_ in the _Encyclopædia
Metropolitana_; also Maurice’s _Mediæval Philosophy_.
263 Cfr. Tennemann’s _Manual of Philosophy_, § 243.
264 On Abélard’s personal character, see Guizot’s _Lettres d’Abélard_,
1839; and Remusat’s _Abélard_, 1845, vol. i. part x., the latter of
which writers has long studied his life, philosophy, and theology;
also Taillandier’s article _La Libre pensée du moyen age_ (_Revue
des Deux Mondes, Aug. 1861_); Tennemann’s _Gesch. der Phil._ viii.
170 seq.; Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 251.
265 In his work _Liber Calamitatum_.
266 In his _Introductio ad Theologiam_, and _Theologia Christiana_. See
Neander’s _Kirchengeschichte_, viii. 505 seq.
267 In A.D. 1121.
268 The nature of this contest is given in Mabillon’s edition of Bernard
(_Præf._ § 5), and the characters of the two disputants are sketched
in Sir J. Stephens’s _Lectures on the History of France_, ii.
(163-207); also in Neander’s _Kirchengesch._, vol. viii, p. 533 seq.