relating to the literary history of Abélard’s works and opinions, as
well as the character of the scholastic philosophy generally. An
edition of the text, including the passages not printed by Cousin,
has subsequently been published by Henke and Lindenkohl, (Marburg,
1851.) See also Neander’s _Kirchengesch._, viii. p. 523 seq.
270 The following are examples of the questions proposed: No. (5.) Quod
non sit Deus singularis et contra; (6) Quod sit Deus tripartitus et
contra; (14) Quod sit filius sine principio et contra; (18) Quod
æterna generatio filii narrari vel sciri vel intelligi possit et
non; (28) Quod nihil fiat casu et contra; (30) Quod peccata etiam
placeant Deo et non; (38) Quod omnia sciat Deus et non; (121) Quod
liceat habere concubinam et contra; (153) Quod nulla de causa
mentiri liceat et contra; (156) Quod liceat hominem occidere et non.
271 Abélard’s Preface is analysed and discussed in Cousin, p. 191 seq.,
and Stephens, vol. ii. p. 169.
272 Viz. (1) the peculiarities of their style; (2) their use of popular
language on scientific questions; (3) the corruption of the text;
(4) the number of spurious books; (5) the retraction by the fathers
of their own previous statements; (6) their careless use of profane
learning; (7) the describing things as they appear, not as they are;
(8) their ambiguous use of words.
273 R. Simon had published a work, _Histoire Critique du Vieux
Testament_, 1678, in which positions were stated which were new at
that time, but which, as Hallam observes, (_Hist. of Lit._ iii.
299,) “now pass without reproof.” The history of the controversy
connected with Simon is contained in Walch’s _Bibliotheca Theologica
Selecta_, 1765, vol. iv. (251-9.) See also Bp. Marsh’s Lectures,
part i. p. 52.
274 See Martène et Durant in _Thesaur. Nov. Anecdot._ (1717) vol. v.
Pref. p. 3.
275 Cousin thinks him a sceptic. So also Sir J. Stephens, ii. 170.
Taillandier (_Rev. des Deux Mondes_ quoted above) takes the view
given in the text, that his character was complex. See also
Laurent’s _La Reforme_, pp. 318-331.
276 See Preller’s _Hist. Phil. Gr. Rom._ xxxviii. § 158. Bayle’s
Dictionary, art. _Zeno_ (vol. iv. edition 5, p. 539 note).
277 Kant’s _Kritik_ (_Transcendent. Dial._ b. ii. div. 2, p. 322, Engl.
transl.). The illustration is borrowed from Taillandier, to whose
article I am indebted for several other suggestions.
278 Grote, vol. viii. ch. 68.
279 In his Prologue.
280 See Cousin’s Preliminary Dissertation, p. 201-3.
281 See Laurent’s _La Reforme_, p. 263.
282 It may be sufficient to allude to names like those of Innocent III.,
Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Frederick II., Cimabue, Dante; and to the
great works of law (civil and canon) and philosophy, the great works
in Gothic architecture, and the revival of painting, as examples of
the intellectual character of the age; and to the commencement of
constitutional liberty, the final settlement of Europe, and
commencement of the present European kingdoms, as illustrations of
its advance in social government.
283 In 1229.
284 The work is attributed to Joachim, a Calabrian abbot, about A.D.
1200, whom Dante names (_Paradiso_, xii. 140). It was edited in
1250, with an introduction probably written by John of Parma,
general of the Franciscans. Mosheim (_History_, cent. 13, part ii.
ch. 2, § 33 note), has carefully investigated the subject. See also
Laurent’s _La Reforme_, pp. 295-302; F. Spanheim’s _Works_, vol. i.
p. 1665; Neander’s _Kirchengesch._ vol. viii. p. 844 seq.
285 In 1260. Labbei _Concil._ (1671) vol. xi. part. ii. p. 2361.
286 Rev. xiv. 6.
287 The work so entitled passed under Lessing’s name; but its authorship
has been recently disputed. In an article in Illgen’s _Zeitschrift
für die Historiche Theologie_ for 1839, part iv., on the life of A.
Thaer compiled by Koerte, there is evidence given that Lessing was
only the editor, Thaer having sent it to him anonymously. See also a
remark in a letter of Lessing, _Works_, vol. xii. p. 503,
(Lachmann’s edition.)
_ 288 Les Ruines_, c. 24.
289 E.g. in Benjamin Constant’s work, _De La Religion_, and Laurent’s
_Etudes de l’Histoire de l’Humanité_; Buckle’s _History of
Civilization_; Comte’s _Philosophie Positive_. It is chargeable in
spirit on many others.
290 The letter of Gregory IX., in which the statement is contained,
bears date July 1, 1239. It is quoted in Raynald’s Supplement to
Baronius. (Annal. Eccles. 1747. vol. ii. p. 218, 13 of Greg. IX.
xxvi.)
291 See Renan’s _Averroes et l’Averroisme_, pp. (292-300), an admirable
work, to which we shall have occasion frequently to refer.
292 Michelet’s _Hist. de France_, iii. 201. The charge of unbelief
against the Templars was never satisfactorily established.
_ 293 Decameron_, i. 3, “_Le Tre Annella_.”
294 On Averroes see Ritter’s _Geschichte der Christlichen Philosophie_,
vol. iv. b. 11, c. 5; Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 259; Laurent’s _La
Reforme_, p. 338-45, 364-85; and especially Renan’s _Averroes_, p.
205 seq.
_ 295 Inferno_, iv. 144; “Averrois che il gran comento feo.”
296 Renan enlarges in one chapter of his work in a most interesting
manner on “Le rôle d’Averroès dans la peinture Italienne du moyen
âge,” pp. (301-16). The illustrations above given are borrowed from
it.
297 In the poem Piers Plowman, pp. 179, 180, Wright’s edition; the
doctrine of the Fall and its consequences is the subject of the
scepticism named.
_ 298 Inferno_, Canto x; 15, 118.
299 Compare Dante, _Inferno_, xix. 104, &c. See Laurent’s _Reforme_,
364-70, 372-78.
300 On this subject, see Laurent, b. iii., and J. D. Burchard’s _Die
Cultur der Renaissance in Italien_, 1860.
301 1400-1625.
302 An Essay of great value, on “the Literature of the Italian Revival,”
appeared in the _British Quarterly Review_, No. 42, April, 1885,
from which most of the illustrations and remarks which follow in the
next two pages are taken.
303 See Laurent, id. p. 364-70.
304 Among recent critics who think so are Foscolo (_Quarterly Review_,
No. 42, p. 521), and Panizzi (_Boiardo_ and _Ariosto_, vol. i. 203),
and in part also Hallam (_History of Literature_, vol. i. 195,
303-5), and Guinguené (_Hist. Lit. de l’Italie_, vol. iv. c. 3-101).
305 The view here taken is maintained with great ability by the writer
of the Review named above. One joke, which he cites as not uncommon
in these epics, is the representation of St. Peter streaming with
perspiration with the labour of opening and shutting the gates of
Paradise (_Morg. Mag._ 26. 91); and, as a more allowable one, the
frequent citation of a certain archbishop Turpin as a witness for
any absurdities, (_Berni Orl. Innam._ 18. 26), whose existence and
pseudonymous work Pope Calixtus II had pronounced to be real.
306 The last remnant of these miracle plays, which occurs decennially in
a valley in Bavaria, is an actual proof of this statement. An
interesting account of the last celebration of it was written by Dr.
Stanley in _Macmillan’s Magazine_ for October, 1860.
307 See Dean Trench’s Introduction (ch. 3) to his _Translations from
Calderon_.
308 The proof of this position must be sought in the Review already
indicated. The illustration from Byron is due to it. Pulci lived
1431-87; Bello, about the end of the fifteenth century, the exact
date not known; Ariosto, 1474-1533.
309 Eichhorn’s _Geschichte der Literatur_, vol. ii. 443; Bayle’s
_Dictionary_, _sub voc._; Halllam’s _History of Literature_, vol. i.
4. 21.
310 Roscoe, in his works on the Medicis, is silent about these
tendencies. In the fifteenth century, Ficinus, Poggio, Politian,
Aretin; and at the beginning of the sixteenth, at the Roman court,
Paolo Giovio and Bembo were suspected. See Brucker’s _Hist.
Philosophiæ_, Period iii. part 1. l. ii. c. 3.
311 The comparison of the painting of the Roman, or the later Florentine
schools of the sixteenth century, with that of the older Florentine,
or of the Umbrian of the fifteenth, will establish this fact so far
as regards art.
312 Similar periods will be hereafter described; viz. French “Humanism”
in Lect. V. and German in Lect. VI.
313 This fact is also taken from the anonymous reviewer before quoted.
314 It is hardly necessary to point out that physical science has not
only made discoveries in its own sphere, but in logic also. By
presenting a definite body of verified truth, it has rendered
possible the creation of a system of _real_ as distinct from
_formal_ logic. In the scientific discoveries that have been made,
we can read the logic of the process by which they were attained,
and thus raise “applied logic” to the dignity of a science, and
indirectly discover a logic of probable evidence. It is the
intellectual, and not merely the material value of physical science
to which allusion is made in the text. It shows at once what man can
know, and the limits where knowledge must give place to faith, and
science to revelation.
315 See Guizot’s _Hist. de la Civilisation de l’Europe_, ch. (9-11.)
316 Reginald Pecock was a bishop of Chichester about the middle of the
fifteenth century; who in his rigour against the Lollards himself
incurred the charge of deism. His work which laid him open to it,
“The Repressor of overmuch blaming of the Clergy,” has lately been
edited with an instructive preface by Mr. Churchill Babington. The
work appeals to reason, but is not open to the charge of deism. In
tone it may be compared to Locke’s “Reasonableness of Christianity.”
317 The contest in which Hütten was engaged against the monks, with the
_Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum_, which related to it, is treated in
Sir W. Hamilton’s _Discussions on Philosophy_, p. 205-240 (reprinted
from Edinburgh Review, No. 53, March 1830). Strauss has also
published two works on Hütten, the one a memoir, 1858; the other
translations from his work, 1861. (See _National Review_, No. 12,
April 1858.)
318 Servetus, though a Spaniard by birth, learned his protestantism in
Italy; Castellio, Ochino, and the Sozini were Italians. See Hallam’s
_History of Literature_, i. 366, 379; 552 seq.: for their views
Merle D’Aubigné’s “_Three Discourses on the Authority of the
Scripture_.” On the Reformation in Italy see Quinet’s _Œuvres_, vol.
iv. b. iii. ch. 1; and Professor Blunt’s _Essays_, p. 89, (essay
reprinted from _Quarterly Review_, January 1828.)
319 It is important to notice that the question asked by the reformed
churches was simply, what did the inspired apostles teach? and the
dispute between them and the Roman catholics referred to the
question, what source was most suited for supplying information on
this point;—whether ecclesiastical tradition or the original
documents of the inspired teachers themselves.
320 See Hallam, _History of Literature_, i. 315. A large portion of
Renan’s _Averroes_, viz. pp. 322-432, is devoted to this subject,
and is the source of much of the following information.
321 Renan, id. (122-8.)
322 Renan, id. (353-67.)
323 He lived about A.D. 200.
324 On Pomponatius (1462-1530), see Ritter’s _Gesch. der Ch. Phil._ V.
pp. 390 seq.; Hallam’s _History of Literature_, i. 315; Renan,
_Averroes_, 353, &c.; Tennemann, _Manual_, § 293; and the Life in
the _Biographie Universelle_. His theological treatise which was
chiefly suspected was _De Immortalitate_; but Brucker quotes from
his other writings to prove atheism. As early as 1512 a Lateran
council took notice of the disbelief of immortality.
325 In place of the scholastic philosophy, which was disappearing, but
which lived in Padua nearly a century later than in the rest of
Europe, three tendencies manifested themselves; viz., (1) a
reconstruction of metaphysical philosophy, on a new, partially
Platonic basis; (2) a reconstruction of logic, by P. Ramas in France
(see Hallam, _History of Literature_, i. 388-90); (3) attention to
experimental science, which led ultimately to the experimental
method of Bacon. Telesius and Campanella belong to the first of
these classes. The system of the former is briefly explained in
Ritter’s _Christliche Philosophie_, p. 561 seq.; Renouvier’s
_Histoire de Philosophie_, t. 2; and in Hallam, _History of
Literature_, ii. 7; and of the latter in Hallam, id. (372-6);
Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 317; and Ritter, id. vi. 3, seq. Both
systems are metaphysical rather than theological. That of Cesalpini
is also explained in Ritter, id. v. 653, seq.; in Hallam, id. ii. 5;
that of Cardan in Brucker, period iii. part ii. lib. l. c. 3; Buhle,
_Gesch. der Neu. Phil._ ii. 857, seq.; and in Morley’s _Life of
Cardan_ (1853).
326 Giordano Bruno (1550-1600), Ritter’s _Chr. Phil._ v. 595. &c. See
Hallam’s _Hist. of Lit._ ii. (8-14.) Buhle’s _Geschichte der Phil._
ii. 703. His life and opinions have been described by Mr. G. H.
Lewis in the _Biogr. Hist. of Phil._ p. 314, seq. A list of his
works is given in _Buhle Gesch. der Neu. Phil._ ii. 703, seq., and
more briefly in Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 300. They were collected and
published in 1830. One of them, the “_Spaccio della bestia
trionfante_,” being very scarce, and only known by report, was
formerly thought to be a translation of the celebrated work “De
Tribus Impostoribus.”
327 In his travels he reached Oxford, and was admitted to lecture in the
university.
328 Lucilio Vanini (1586-1619.) His chief works were “Amphitheatrum
Æternae Providentiæ,” and “De Admirandis Naturæ Arcanis.” The latter
was condemned by the Sorbonne. Full particulars are given in
Brucker’s _Hist. Phil._ period iii. part ii. 1. i. ch. 6. See also
_Buhle, Gesch. der Neu. Phil._ ii. 866, seq.; and the Life in the
_Biographie Universelle_.
329 On this reaction, see Hallam, _Hist. of Lit._ i. (536-44).
330 This revival is at the same time the proof of the existence of
doubt. Staüdlin, in Eichhorn’s _Geschichte der Lit._ vol. vi. p. 24
seq. enumerates treatises of this kind by Ficinus, Alfonso de Spina,
Savonarola, Æneas Sylvius, and Pico di Mirandola. The rare work of
Sebonde also, which has been supposed to be deistical, is really a
treatise on natural religion as an evidence of revealed. See
Hallam’s _Hist. of Lit._ i. 139, 40; Tennemann’s _Manual_, 277.
331 On Socrates, see Grote’s _History of Greece_, vol. viii. ch. 68.
332 On Bacon and Descartes see Ritter, _Christliche Philosophie_, v. 309
seq., and vii. 3 seq., Buhle iii. (1-86), Tennemann’s _Geschichte_,
x. 200 seq.; and the references given in Tennemann’s Manual, § 312
and 333. Among English sources, see Morell’s _History of
Philosophy_, i. 76, 166; Lewes’ _History of Philosophy_, Hallam’s
_History of Literature_, vol. ii. part 3. ch. 3. On Descartes, see
also Bouillet’s _Histoire de la Revolution Cartesienne_ (1842) p.
95-144; and on Bacon, the monograph by Kuno Fischer of Jena,
translated 1857.
333 In chronological order Herbert and Hobbes ought to come before
Spinoza. Indeed their works furnished suggestions to him; but as the
forms of scepticism which follow are arranged by nations, it is more
convenient to place Spinoza here alone previously to treating the
others.
334 The best means of understanding Spinoza is the perusal of his own
works. It is only in modern times that he has been understood. The
old works against him, Reimannus (_de Atheismo_), Mansveldt,
Cuperus, and Kortholt (_de Trib. Impostoribus_), are chiefly
obsolete. A memoir exists by Colerus, 1706. Among the moderns he has
been carefully studied by E. Saisset, both in _Essais de Philosophie
Religieuse_, 1859, and in a dissertation prefixed to a translation
of his works, 1861, and in a learned article in the _Revue des Deux
Mondes_ for Jan. 1862; also by Damiron, _Essai sur Spinoza_. Among
English writers, see Hallam, _History of Literature_, iii. 344 seq.,
Lewes’ _History of Philosophy_, and an article on the
Theologico-Politicus in the _British Quarterly Review_, No. 16, for
Nov. 1848, referring to Spinoza’s theology. In Germany his opinions
have been examined by Ritter, _Chr. Phil._ vii 169 seq.; Buhle iii.
503 seq.; Tennemann’s _Geschichte_, x. 462 seq. Schleiermacher in
early life expressed his opinion of him in words of extravagant
eulogy, (_Reden über die Relig._, p. 47, quoted in Lewes’ _History
of Philosophy_.) Consult also the various references given in
Tennemann’s Manual, § 338. A volume of Spinoza’s writings has lately
been found and published, which is made interesting by a photograph
from a rare portrait of him.
335 In the admirable article in the _Revue_, quoted in the last note,
Saisset discusses carefully the sources from which Spinoza derived
his theology and philosophy. Cousin in earlier life had regarded his
philosophy as borrowed from Descartes (_Fragm. de Phil. Cartes._, p.
428 seq.), and Ritter coincides in this opinion. More recently, in
the new edition (1861) of his _Hist. Gen. de la Philos._, he regards
it as borrowed from Maimonides (p. 457.) See on Maimonides’
Philosophy, Adolph. Franck’s _Etudes Orientales_, p. 318. Saisset
after a careful examination comes to the conclusion that the
theology was suggested by Maimonides’ _More Nevochim_, but that the
philosophy was derived neither from the Kabbala, nor Averroes, nor
Maimonides, but from Descartes.
336 See the references given in a former note.
337 Compare the Essay on Cousin by Sir W. Hamilton (Dissertations, p.
32).
_ 338 Ethica_, part ii. prop. 1 and 2.
339 P. 100.
_ 340 Theol. Polit._ c. vi.
_ 341 Ep._ xxi. vol. iii. p. 195. (Lips. ed. 1846.) It will be hereafter
seen how exactly this result is parallel to the religious philosophy
and Christology developed in the Hegelian school. See Lect. VII.
342 A succinct account of the contests in Holland is given in C.
Butler’s _Life of Grotius_, c. 5, 6, 12. See also Amand Saintes,
_Histoire de la Vie Spinoza_, p. 63; Hase’s _Church History_, E. T.
§ 356; Hagenbach, _Dogmengeschichte_, § 235.
343 A good analysis for an English reader may be found in the article
quoted above from the _British Quarterly Review_.
_ 344 Theol. Pol._ ch. 19, 20. The idea here is borrowed from Hobbes.
345 Ch. 1-6.
346 Ch. 7-12.
347 Ch. 13-15.
348 Ch. 1, 2.
349 Ch. 3.
350 Ch. 6.
351 Ch. 8.
352 Ch. 12-14.
_ 353 De Veritate._ See Lect. IV.
354 Great critical sagacity is evinced in describing the characteristics
of prophecy (ch. i. and ii.), and the historic peculiarities of the
Pentateuch (ch. viii.); which however, it would seem, had been
observed partially by some of the learned Dutch theologians of the
time.
355 This lay at the bottom of the opposition which Buxtorf and Owen
offered to the view, now universally adopted, of Capellus and
Morinus, that the vowel points were a late introduction in Hebrew,
perhaps of the sixth to the tenth centuries A.D. The history of the
controversy is given in Walch’s _Bibliotheca Theol. Select._ vol.
iv. p. 244, 268; and Wolf’s _Bibliotheca Hebr._ part iv. p. 7; part
ii. p. 25 and 270. The _Formula Consensus_ of the Helvetic church
(1675), (on which see Schweizer in Herzog’s _Real. Encycl._ xi. 439
seq.; Henke’s _Kirchengeschichte_, vol. iv. § 34; Hagenbach’s
_Dogmengesch._ § 222), was partly designed against the views of
Capellus. On the question of the vowel points, consult the
_Prolegomena_ to Walton’s Polyglot, iii. 39; Carpzov. _Crit. Sacr._
242 seq. Wolf’s _Bibliotheca Hebraica_, ii. 475; iv. 214 seq.; and
among the moderns, Gesenius’s _Gesch. der Hebr. Sprache_, § 48.
356 E.g. in Le Clerc. See _Sentimens de Quelques Theologiens d’Hollande
sur l’Histoire Critique du père Simon_, and his Five Letters on
Inspiration; and in the French Roman catholic critic, R. Simon, in
reference to whom see note on p. 83.
357 E.g. by Dr. Lee on _Inspiration_, Lect. I.
358 Compare Dr. Lee’s learned and valuable work on Inspiration, ch. iv.
The writer of this lecture need hardly say, that he cordially and
reverently believes in the miraculous character of scripture
inspiration; and that the remarks here in the text are only aimed at
the extravagant views held in the seventeenth century, such as that,
above named, in reference to the Hebrew vowel points. No Christian
however ought to fail to appreciate the deep reverence for holy
scripture implied in the theory from which dissent is here
expressed.
359 A note, giving proof of the fact here stated, will be found at the
end of Lect. VIII.
360 Wordsworth, _Ecclesiastical Sonnets_, part ii. 47.
361 See above p. 11.
362 This computation regards lord Herbert of Cherbury as marking the
commencement, and Hume the close; the doubters of the latter half of
the eighteenth century, such as Gibbon, being excluded, because
their writings are marked by the forms of French unbelief.
363 The former in the struggle of Arminians and Calvinists in the
Puritan controversy; the latter in the revolution supposed to be
caused in our literature by the influence of Dryden.
364 In addition to the references given in Lect. III. (p. 106) see
Cousin’s _Hist. de la Phil. au 18__e__ siècle_ (Leçon 3); and
Remusat’s _Essai sur Bacon_, 1857; but especially the sketch of the
relation of Bacon’s philosophy to religion in K. Fischer’s monograph
on Bacon. (c. x. and xi.)
365 This inquiry was called forth in the disputes of the established
church against popery and puritanism, and led to works in favour of
toleration by Chillingworth, Bp. Jeremy Taylor (_Liberty of
Prophesying_), and later by Milton; and towards the close of the
century by Locke.
366 Hobbes’s _Leviathan_ was not published till 1651; but the thoughts
were evidently suggested by the woes of the reign of Charles I.
367 Herbert (1581-1648). His works were, _De Veritate_, 1624, _De Causis
Errorum_, 1645, _De Religione Laici_, _De Religione Gentilium_,
1663. An autobiography was published in 1764. He was answered by
Locke (_Reason. of Christianity_), Baxter, Halyburton, Leland
(_Deists_, lett. 1 and 2), and Kortholt; and his philosophy was
attacked by Gassendi. On Herbert see Ritter’s _Christliche
Philosophie_, vi. 390 seq.; Tennemann’s _Gesch._ x. 113 seq.;
Eichhorn’s _Gesch. der Lit._ 6, 95 seq.; Hallam’s _History of
Literature_, ii. 380 seq.; and Lechler’s _Geschichte des Englischen
Deismus_, p. 36-54; Remusat in _Rev. des. Deux Mondes_, 1854, vol.
iii. His views in some respects seem to have resembled those of
Pecock or Sebonde.
368 In its mode of treatment it has been compared to Bacon’s _Wisdom of
the Ancients_.
369 In the _De Veritate_.
_ 370 De Relig. Gentil._, 15. 199. App. to Relig. Laici, 2, 3.
371 There is a curious record in his journal (_Autobiography_, p. 171-3)
of an earnest prayer for guidance on the subject of the publication
of his first book _De Veritate_, which he no doubt saw was opposed
to popular belief.
372 Lechler, _Geschichte des E. D._ p. 64.
373 Because they bear, as he thought, the great test of being
self-evident. It will be remembered that the _clearness_ of an idea
was the test of the innate character of it in Descartes’ system
(_Principia Philosophiæ_, § 10). Such ideas are those which would be
regarded in Kant’s system as necessary forms of thinking, and in
Cousin’s as belonging to the impersonal reason.
374 Hobbes (1588-1679). The _Leviathan_ is a philosophy of society,
studied as the development of the individual. He first treats of the
individual, book i.; then the commonwealth, book ii.; then the
Christian commonwealth, book iii.; and the kingdom of error, book
iv.; borrowing the idea from Augustin’s _De Civ. Dei_. The brevity
of the notice in the text prevents the possibility of doing justice
to the grandeur and to the good sense shown in many respects in
Hobbes’s works. He was answered by Cudworth (_Intellectual System_);
Cumberland (_De Leg. Nat._); Dr. Seth Ward; Bramhall, (1658);
Archbp. Tenison, 1760; and Lord Clarendon, in his _Survey of
Leviathan_ (1676). For an explanation and criticism on his
philosophical principles, see Ritter, ch. vi. 453 seq.; Tennemann,
b. x. 53 seq.; Lewes’ _History of Philosophy_; Morell’s Id.; Hallam,
b. ii. 463 seq.; and on his religious opinions, Leland (ch. iii.),
and Lechler (p. 67-107).
375 Part i. c. 12.
376 Part iii. c. 39.
377 Part iii. c. 33.