Thoughts on Human Souls_, apparently intended to disprove the
existence of spirit and natural immortality, but not of immortality
itself as a divine gift from God to man, though opponents
disbelieved him in this assertion. The list of answers written is
given in Chalmers’s _Biographical Dictionary_ under _Coward_. The
house of commons in 1704 condemned the book, and caused it to be
burned.
379 Spinoza’s view of religion is the part suggested by Herbert, and his
view of the relation of the state to religion that suggested by
Hobbes.
380 See Note 21 (p. 413).
381 C. Blount (1654-93) wrote the _Anima Mundi_, 1679; _Life of
Apollonius Tyana_, 1680; _Oracles of Reason_, 1695. (See Macaulay,
_History of England_, vol. iv. 352.) He was refuted by Nichols
(1723) _Conference with a Theist_. See Lechler (114-124), and
Leland, ch. iv.
382 The Licensing Act of 1662 concerning the press was allowed to expire
in 1679. When James II. came to the throne (1685) the censorship was
renewed for seven years; and again in 1693 was revived for two
years, at which time it finally expired. See _North British Review_,
No. 60, (May 1859.)
383 As proved by his work in 1705, _The Deist’s Manual_.
384 The _Oracles of Reason_ (1693) consists of sixteen papers in several
letters to Mr. Hobbes and others, by Ch. Blount, Gildon, and others.
Papers (No. 1-4) are a defence of T. Burnet’s archæology, or on
subjects cognate to it. No. 5 is concerning the deist’s religion; 6
on immortality; 7 on Arians, Trinitarians, and Councils; 8 that
felicity is pleasure; 9 of fate and fortune; 10 of the original of
the Jews; 11 of the lawfulness of marrying two sisters successively;
12 of the subversion of Judaism, and the origin of the Millennium;
13 of the auguries of the ancients; 14 of natural religion; 15 that
the soul is matter; 16 that the world is eternal.
385 No. 14.
386 No. 5.
387 Attention had been called a little earlier to the consideration of
the first principles of religion, by the Platonizing Cambridge party
of More and Cudworth, followers partly of Descartes. See Burnet’s
_Mem. of his Times_, i. 187; and the Rev. A. Taylor’s able
introduction to the edition of _Simon Patrick’s Works_, Oxford 1858,
(p. 28-42).
388 On Locke’s philosophy see Ritter _Chr. Phil._ vii. 449-534; Cousin’s
_Hist. de Philos. au 18e siècle_, ch. 15-25; Morell’s _Hist. of
Phil._, vol. i. p. 100 seq.; Lewes _Id._: Lechler, 154-179. His work
the _Reasonableness of Christianity_ typified the tone of the
writers on the Christian evidences for the next half century.
389 For this and the next named controversy, see Lathbury’s _Non-Jurors_
(1845), ch. iv., and _History of Convocation_, ch. 12-14.
390 On the Bangorian controversy (1717, 18), see Hallam’s
_Constitutional History_ (vol. ii. 408). A list of the pamphlets
which were written during the controversy was made by the
antiquarian Thomas Hearne, and is printed in Hoadley’s works (3
vols. fol. 1773). See vol. ii. 381, and the continuation in vol. i.
689.
391 Toland (1669-1722). He was born an Irish catholic, turned
protestant, wrote his first deist book, 1696; fled for refuge to the
court of Hanover, and found protection there; wrote political
pamphlets, and lived abroad till near the close of his life. His
chief theological writings are, _Christianity not Mysterious_, 1696;
_Amyntor_, or Defence of the Life of Milton, 1699 (on the Canon);
_Nazarenus_, 1718; _Tetradymus_, 1720; _Pantheisticon_, 1720, sive
formula celebrandæ sodalitatis Socraticæ, 1720, a parody on the
Christian service books. These are collected in his _Miscellaneous
Works_ (1726). (Vol. i. contains his translation of the Spaccio of
Bruno.) He was answered by John Norris, Archbp. Synge, and Dr. Peter
Browne; by S. Clarke, and by Jones in his work on the Canon. Consult
Leland’s _View of Deistical Writers_, Lett, iv.; Lechler (180-210),
and (463-73), and note on p. 193.
392 In his _Christianity not Mysterious_.
393 In his _Amyntor_.
394 For these facts see the Memoir of Toland prefixed to his
_Miscellaneous Works_, and also Chalmers’s _Biographical
Dictionary_.
395 This opposition increased Toland’s bitterness, for, in the following
year, 1698, in publishing a Life of Milton, and taking occasion to
disprove that Charles I was the author of the Ikon Basilike, he
threw out hints of similar forgeries in works attributed to the
apostles. The hatred of churchmen was further increased by this
work.
396 See Wilkins’s _Concilia_, vol. iv., 631; Burnet’s _History of his
own Times_, vol. iv. 521; Lathbury’s _History of Convocation_
(1842), p. 288 seq.
397 Sect. i.
398 Sect. ii. ch. 1.
399 Id. ch. 4.
400 Ch. 1, 2.
401 Sect. iii. ch. 2.
402 Ch. 3.
403 Ch. 5.
404 Cfr. his _Apology for Christianity not Mysterious_ 1697, and also a
letter from Mr. Molyneux to Locke (Locke’s Works, ed. 1723, vol.
iii. p. 566), quoted in the memoir (p. 17) prefixed to Toland’s
_Miscellaneous Works_.
405 In his Life of Milton (1698) pp. 91, 92, he had alluded to works
falsely attributed to Christ and the apostles. This was attacked by
Blackhall as if intended against the canonical scriptures, and was
defended by Toland by the publication of the _Amyntor_, a catalogue
of books mentioned by the fathers as truly or falsely ascribed to
Jesus Christ, his apostles, &c. The learned Pfaff calls it “insignem
Catalogum” (_Diss. Crit. Nov. Test._ ch. i. § 2).
406 A Memoir of Lord Shaftesbury (1671-1713), has been lately published
(1860). His chief work was the _Characteristics_. On his religious
views see Leland ch. 5 and 6; Lechler 243-265; and on his
philosophical views, see Ritter vii. 535 seq.; Eichhorn, _Geschichte
der Literatur_, vi. 424 seq.
407 On his moral system, see Mackintosh’s _Dissertation on Ethics_, p.
158-166; and on Butler’s ethical system, and its relation to
Shaftesbury, see the same work, p. 171 seq.
408 Works, vol. ii. _Inquiry concerning Virtue. Charact._ ii. 272 etc.
409 The readings of the text had been disturbed by Courcelles (1658),
and by Walton in his Polyglot, which caused an alarm, on which see
Hody (_De Bibl. Text._ 563 seq.), but not widely till Mills, 1707.
Mills’ readings were attacked by Whitby in 1710, and the arguments
of the latter were afterwards turned by Collins against Revelation.
410 In 1699. Daillé’s criticism on the Ignatian Epistles (1666) had
shown similar sagacity to that afterwards displayed by Bentley, and
bore to his inquiries the same relation which those just named in
the test bore to those of Mills.
411 Collins (1676-1729). His works were on _Immortality_ (1707, 8) in
the Dodwell controversy; _Freethinking_, 1713, refuted entirely by
Bentley in the _Phileleutherus Lipsiensis_. (See also Dr. Ibbot’s
Boyle Lectures, 1713, where the general subject is treated.) On
_Necessity_, 1715. The _Grounds of the Christian Religion_, 1724
(occasioned by Whiston’s work on Prophecy); answered by bishop
Chandler, Samuel Chandler, T. Sherlock, and Moses Lowman; _Scheme of
Literal Prophecy_, 1727, in answer to Chandler. See Leland, ch.
vii., and Lechler, 217-240. Henke’s _Kirchengeschichte_, vi. s. 29.
412 In the two works named below in the text.
413 E.g. that of Buckle in _History of Civilization_.
414 P. 71.
415 P. 5-27.
416 P. 32, &c.
417 P. 56.
418 P. 86.
419 P. 92.
420 P. 100, &c.
421 Part i. § 1-5.
422 Id. § 6, 7.
423 Id. 11.
424 Id. (8-10.)
425 Two other writers, Mandeville and Lyons, have been omitted;
Mandeville (_Fables of the Bees_, 1723), because his speculations
did not bear directly on religion; Lyons, because his work is not
important. In 1723 he published the _Infallibility of Human
Judgment_, in which he analysed the mind, and applied the results of
his analysis to the first principles of natural religion, and to
discredit the evidences and doctrines of revealed. It bears more
resemblance to Toland and Chubb than to any other writers, but is a
feeble work, interesting only as showing the prevalence of
psychological inquiries, and the tendency to examine psychologically
the subject of religion.
426 E.g. Some of those in Germany, see Lect. VI and VII.
427 In the _Moderator_, or _controversy between the author of the
Grounds, &c. and his reverend opponents_, 1727. (Woolston’s Works,
vol. v.)
428 Woolston, 1669-1733. His works are collected in five volumes, with a
life prefixed. His pamphlets on Miracles were refuted by bishops
Pierce, 1729, Gibson, and Smabroke, by Lardner, and by Sherlock in
the Trial of the Witnesses. On Woolston, see Leland (Let. 8),
Lechler (289-311), Henke, vi. 49.
429 Sydney Sussex.
_ 430 A Free Gift to the Clergy, or the Hireling Priests challenged_,
1722, (_Works_, vol. iii.).
431 See Memoir prefixed to his Works, pp. 5 and 22.
432 In Discourse iii.
433 Disc. i. Div. i.
434 Strauss (_Leb. Jes._ Introd. § 6) thinks that his bitterness
manifests that he did not.
435 Disc. iv, and _Defence_, sect. i.
436 Voltaire, _Œuvres Crit._ vol. xlvii. pp. 346-356.
437 Swift’s Poem on his Death, _Works_, vol. xiv. p. 359.
438 The latest Pastorals of Gibson are not only against Woolston, but
other deists also, such as Tindal.
439 His friends would have found money for the fine; but Woolston could
not find securities for his good behaviour if released.
440 Matthew Tindal, (1657-1733), a follow of All Souls’ college, wrote
in 1706 _The Rights of the Christian Church asserted_, probably
suggested by Spinoza’s writings, to show that the absolute
subjection of the church to the state was the only safeguard for
public happiness; and in 1730, _Christianity as old as the
Creation_, which was answered by Conybeare 1732, Leland 1733, and by
Waterland. The reply of the latter was attacked by Conyers
Middleton. On Tindal, see Lechler, 326-341; Leland, Lett. 9; Henke,
vi. 57.
441 Ch. i-vi.
442 Ch. iii.
443 Ch. iv.
444 Ch. v.
445 Ch. vi.
446 Ch. ix-xii.
447 Ch. xiii. p. 258 seq.
448 P. 272 seq.
449 Ch. xiv.
450 See the remarks in _Essays and Reviews_, 1860, p. 272.
451 Morgan died 1743. His chief work was the _Moral Philosopher_, 1737,
with two volumes more in reply to opponents. It was refuted by
Leland, and the controversy was carried forward in Tracts which are
described in Leland’s _Deists_, vol. i. Lett. 11 and 12. See also
Lechler, 370-390; Henke, vi. 70.
452 Vol. i. p. 86, 96. vol. ii. § 1.
453 P. 145 seq.
454 Vol. i.
455 Id. p. 272, &c. ii. § 6.
456 Id. § 7.
457 Id. § 10.
458 T. Chubb (1679-1747), of whom a brief memoir was published 1747. He
was the author of various tracts, of which a list is given in
Darling’s _Cyclopædia Bibliographica_, 1852. The account of Chubb’s
views given in the text is brief, partly because of their similarity
to others previously named, and partly because the author has been
able to see only very few of Chubb’s works. But they are explained
in Lechler, p. 343-356, and Leland, ch. 13. Chubb’s earlier writings
seem to be Socinian, his later deistical. His best known works are,
_A Discourse concerning Reason_, 1731; _the True Gospel of Jesus
Christ_, 1739; and _Posthumous Works_, 2 vols. 1748.
_ 459 Posthumous Works_, i. 287.
460 Id. i. 292.
461 Id. ii. sect. 6.
_ 462 Posthumous Works_, ii. 152.
463 Id. 177, &c.
464 Id. i. 22.
465 Another work was published anonymously in 1742, entitled
_Christianity not founded on Argument_, supposed to be written by
the younger Dodwell, son of the learned nonjuror. Its aim is to show
that Christianity never propagated itself by argument, but that the
evidence of it depends upon a personal illumination of each person
who believes it. The work was supposed to be a satire on
Christianity. If earnest, it marked the truth that emotional causes
are intertwined with intellectual in the formation of belief. See
Lechler, pp. 411-421; Leland, Lett. xi. The book of Jasher,
published in 1751, is a forgery, written probably by some deist
(Horne’s _Introduction_, vol. ii. part ii. p. 142. ed. 8).
466 He was imprisoned in the King’s Bench, and kept from starvation by
money from the benevolent archbishop Secker. He died in 1768. See
Lechler, pp. 313-22; Leland, ch. x.
467 Bolingbroke (1678-1751). See Schlosser’s _History of the Eighteenth
Century_, vol. i. ch. i. § 3 (transl.); Lechler, pp. 396-405;
Leland, ch. 22-34.
468 On Pouilly, see Sir C. Lewis, _Inquiry into the Credibility of Roman
History_, vol. i. ch. i. p. 5, note, Pouilly published in 1722 his
_Dissertation sur l’Incertitude et l’Histoire des quatre premiers
siècles de Rome_. (See _Mém. de l’Academ. des Inscr._, vol. ix.)
Beaufort followed out the same line of inquiry in 1738. The two
writers are considered to have laid the basis of the modern
historical criticism of ancient history.
469 They are chiefly, _A Letter on one of Tillotson’s Sermons_ in vol.
iii. of his works; the _Essays_, in vols. iii. and iv.; viz. Essay 1
on Human Knowledge, (2) on Philosophy, (3) on the rise of
Monotheism, (4) on Authority in Religion; and Fragments in vol. v.
470 Vol. iii. _Letter on Tillotson_, also _Letter to Pouilly_.
471 Vol. v. No. 57, 58.
472 Cfr. _Remusat’s Angleterre au 18__e__ Siècle_ i. 22, for remarks on
Bolingbroke’s influence on Pope. The following lines of Pope exactly
express Bolingbroke’s philosophy:
“The universal Cause
Acts not by partial, but by general laws,
And makes what happiness we justly call,
Subsist not in the good of one, but all.” (_Ep._ iv. 35.)
473 Instances are to be found in Leland, who discusses his opinions at
great length. The reader who compares Leland’s quotations with
Bolingbroke’s works will perhaps think that he has pressed their
meaning rather far; but further consideration will show that he has
correctly expressed Bolingbroke’s spirit and purpose.
474 Letter on _Tillotson_.
475 Ch. iv. 328.
476 Ch. iv. 227, 8.
477 Ch. iv. 405, 272.
478 The history of Apologetik passes through the same phases, and when
it devotes itself to the later forms, becomes of less general
interest, and is more simply literary; which illustrates the fact
that the later doubts are of a much less practical and more
recondite character than those hitherto named.
479 Hume (1711-1776). For his philosophy, see Tennemann, _Geschichte_,
xi. 425; Ritter, _Christliche Philosophie_, viii. b. 7. ch. ii.;
Cousin, _Histoire de la Philosophie Moderne_, _Leçon_ xi.; Morell,
_History of Philosophy_, i. 338; Lord Brougham’s _Preliminary
Discourse to Paley’s Natural Theology_, p. 248. For his religious
opinions, see Leland, _Lett._ 16-21; Lechler pp. 425-34. His views
on miracles were answered by Paley, Bp. John Douglas, Campbell, and
Chalmers.
480 Works, vol. iv. _Inquiry Concerning the Human Understanding_; Essay
xi. on Providence and Future Life; Essay x. on Miracles.
481 The miracles connected with the Abbé Paris were defended in _La
Verité des Miracles de M. Paris_, by C. de Montgéron, 1745. See
concerning them, C. Butler’s _Church of France_, (_Works_, v. pp.
135-142); Bp. John Douglas’s “Criterion by which the true miracles
contained in the New Testament may be distinguished from those of
Pagans and Papists;” Tholuck’s _Vermischte Schriften_, i. 183.
482 E.g. by Professor Powell, in _Essays and Reviews_.
483 This line of thought concerning the necessity of establishing the
antecedent probability of the fact, in order that the evidence may
be logically convincing, is adopted by two writers of very different
opinions, by Mr. Mansel (Essay in the _Aids to Faith_, § 18-23), and
Mr. J. S. Mill (_Logic_, vol. ii. b. iii. ch. 25. § 2). The
distinction between wonder and miracle is allowed by Dean Lyall
(_Propædia Prophetica_); and Mr. Penrose (_The use of Miracles in
proving a Revelation_). Cfr. also Doederlin’s _Instit. Theol.
Christ_, § 9, 10.
484 See _Aids to Faith_, Mansel’s Essay, § 22.
485 There follows hence another peculiarity in reference to miracles;
viz., that we require an interpreting mind to explain them. This is
the reason why so many thoughtful men believe that the outburst of
fire when Julian tried to rebuild the Jewish temple, and the wonder
of the thorn in the history of Port Royal, were nothing more than
natural wonders. If the final cause be considered to have been
sufficient in these cases to warrant divine interposition, at least
there was no interpreter to explain them, nor any revealed message
to be taught. It must be conceded that this trait is wanting in some
miracles recorded in scripture, but not in those which are wrought
to attest a revelation, those which we use in proof of a special
message from the unseen world. Werenfels (_Opusc. Theol._ 1718,
_Diss._ v.) has given tests for the discrimination of miracles which
are quoted by Van Mildert (Boyle Lect. II. p. 584).
486 Cfr. Dean Trench’s remarks on the apologetic value of miracles,
(_Notes on Miracles_, Introd. ch. vi). In the same work will be
found an excellent and interesting account of the various assaults
made on the argument from miracles. He classifies the assaults as
follows: (1) the Jewish, (2) the heathen (Celsus, &c.), (3) the
pantheistic (Spinoza), (4) the sceptical (Hume), (5) that which
regards miracles as such only subjectively (Schleiermacher), (6) the
rationalistic (Paulus), (7) the historico-critical (Woolston,
Strauss). With Dean Trench’s remarks. Compare also Pascal,
_Pensées_, part ii. art. 19. § 9; Lyall, _Prop. Proph._ p. 441; Dr.
Arnold’s _Lectures on Modern History_, pp. 133, 137.
487 E.g. Lessing, &c. Reimarus, &c. See Lect. VI.
488 Butler (1692-1752). The Analogy was published in 1736. The reader’s
attention is invited to the excellent edition of it by bishop
Fitzgerald (1st ed. 1849), and the able memoir and criticism which
precede. Mr. Bartlett has also written a memoir of Butler. Cfr. also
Blunt’s Essays, p. 490 seq.
489 For example, some of the physical proofs of immortality in part i.
ch. i. are weakened by the discoveries of physiology; and those in
favour of the miraculous character of creation, in part ii. ch. ii.
would be regarded as of small value by those who hold the hypothesis
either of the transmutation of species, or of their occurrence
according to a law of natural selection. Some things of a different
kind in Butler, which need correction, are pointed out in
Fitzgerald’s edition. See e.g. p. 184, note.
490 This is the objection taken by Tholuck (_Vermischt. Schrift._ p.
192, 3.) A somewhat similar objection is quoted by Fitzgerald from
Mackintosh, Introd. p. 49, upon both of which he offers criticisms.
A kindred objection has been stated (probably by Mr. Martineau) in
the _National Review_, No. 15. Jan. 1859, (pp. 211-214,) and another
by Miss S. Hennell in _the Sceptical Tendency of Butler’s Analogy_,
1857, in which she traces doubt in Butler’s life as well as
teaching. Others may be found stated and examined in bishop
Hampden’s _Philosophical Evidence of Christianity_, 1827. (pp.
229-291.)
491 This conjecture is given by Fitzgerald in the life prefixed to his
edition of the Analogy (p. 36), where also two passages are quoted,
one from Foster, and the other from Berkeley, which certain passages
of Butler resemble. It would be interesting to know whether the work
of Dr. Peter Browne on _Things Divine and Natural conceived of by
Analogy_, 1733, had come under Butler’s notice. Many similar
passages, as well as references to the sources of the difficulties
which Butler answers, are given in the notes to Fitzgerald’s
edition. Mr. Pattison also (_Essays and Reviews_, p. 286) has
expressed an opinion that Butler was much assisted by the works of
his predecessors. The probability is, that in all great works their
authors assimilate an amount of information current in the age, as
well as create new material. This was probably the case even in
works like Euclid’s Geometry and Aristotle’s Natural History and
Organum.
492 The value of Butler’s argument is fully discussed in the admirable
work on Butler by bishop Hampden before quoted, which is the best
existing commentary on the author: second to it are Chalmers’s
_Natural Religion_ and _Bridgwater Treatise_.
493 Hampden’s _Phil. Evid._ (131-228.)
494 The revival in the early part of the century was due to the agency
of Wesley and Whitfield outside the church; in the latter to those
of such men as Romaine, Newton, and ultimately Simeon, within it.
495 E.g., W. Law’s _Serious Call_, and _Christian Perfection_.
496 Viz., by means of the Moravians of Herrnhut, whose founder,
Zinzendorf, himself sprang from the pietist movement.
497 Zech. iv. 6.
498 The most effective sketch of the intellectual and social state of
France in the last century is given in Buckle’s _History of
Civilization_, vol. i.; especially in ch. 8, 11, 12, and 14. His
narrative only sets forth the dark side of the picture, and the
Christian reader frequently feels pained at some of his remarks; but
it is generally correct so far as it goes, and the references are
copious to the original sources which the author used. I have
therefore frequently rested content with quoting this work without
indicating further sources. An instructive account of the
centralization under Louis XIV is given in Sir J. Stephens’s
_Lectures on the History of France_, Lect. 21-23. The reign of Louis
XV is treated in De Tocqueville’s _Histoire Philosophie du Règne de
Louis XV_. A brief view of the history may be seen in the works of
the liberal Roman catholic, C. Butler, vol. v. on _Church of
France_.
499 The passages from Benoit’s _Histoire de l’Edict de Nantes_, vol. v.
p. 887 seq., and Quick’s _Synodicon_, i. p. 130 seq., respecting the
cruelties of the dragonnades, are quoted at length in Buckle, i. p.
624, note.
500 This occurred in the contest concerning the Gallican liberties, and
the dispute about the Bull Unigenitus. Concerning the former see C.
Butler’s _Church of France_ (Works, vol. v.) p. 34 seq., and Hase’s
_Church History_, § 424; and, on the latter, Butler ut sup. 188-249,
and Hase, § 420.
501 The nature of the literature of the reign of Louis XIV, and the
alteration of position of authors in the new reign, are explained in
Buckle, i. ch. 11 and 12.
502 1715-1723.
503 Literature really became a political power, and exercised a similar
influence to that of the modern newspaper press.
504 Professor Webb of Dublin, in his work, _The Intellectualism of
Locke_, has given evidence which establishes this point.
505 On Condillac see Cousin, _Cours de la Philosophie Morale_, leçon 3;
Renouvier, _Philosophie Moderne_, v. 2. § 4 Villemain, _Cours de
Literature_, ii. 20; Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, i. 148 seq.;
Lewes’ _History of Philosophy_.
506 It may prevent ambiguity to state that the term _materialism_, when
employed in these lectures, is not used in its modern popular sense
of mere animalism, the obedience to the lower side of human nature;
but in its technical sense, as the kind of philosophy which so
regards spirit to be a property of matter as to produce inferences
unfavourable to the belief in immortality or moral obligation.
507 On the scepticism of Montaigne (1532-1592) see Tennemann’s
_Geschichte der Philosophie_, ix. 443; Vinet’s _Essai de Philosophie
Morale_; Sainte-Beuve _Critiques et Portraits Littéraires_, vol.
iv.; Hallam’s _History of Literature_, ii. 29; Emerson’s
_Representative Men_; and R. W. Church in _Oxford Essays_, 1857.
508 On Charron (1541-1603) see Tennemann, Id. ix. 527. Sainte-Beuve, t.
xi.; Hallam, i. 570, ii. 362, 511; and the article in the _Biogr.
Univ._
509 On Bayle (1647-1706) see Tennemann, xi. 268 seq.; Renouvier, _Phil.
Mod._ iii. 3. § 6; Sainte-Beuve, iii. 392.
510 On Fontenelle (1657-1757) see Sainte-Beuve, iii. and the _Biogr.
Univ._ Another writer, Dolet (1509-1546), was also suspected, at an
earlier period, not only of scepticism but of atheism. See his Life,
by J. Boulmier, 1857.
511 On R. Simon see Lect. III. p. 83.
512 See Lechler’s _Gesch. des Eng. Deismus_, p. 445.
513 On the great eagerness for English literature in France at that
time, see the facts collected by Buckle, i. (658-670).