Rabbin was erroneously given as the seventeenth century (p. 123).
This was the date when Wagenseil by great good fortune obtained a
copy of his work, and first made it public. The writer avails
himself of this opportunity, in which he has occasion to name his
own volume, to correct a few mistakes, and make a few alterations
where subsequent study has convinced him that he was in error. E.g.
In Sermon IV. the illustration from Indian history (p. 111) is based
on the view, now known to be wrong, that Buddhism preceded
Brahminism in origin. Also the view (p. 109) of the date of the
introduction of the Chaldee character has been rendered doubtful by
the arguments which Hupfeld has directed to the subject
(_Ausführliche Hebraische Grammatik_), in which he shows that the
corruption of the language was gradual, and that the adoption of the
square Chaldee character did not take place till after Christ. (See
a brief account of his views in Davidson’s _Introd. to Old Test._
1856, ch. ii.) Also, p. 121, the use of the word “surnamed” for
Jarchi disguises the origin of the name. In Sermon I. (2d div.) the
order of chronology is not sufficiently observed in the quotations
from the Old Testament. In Serm. VIII. (p. 244) the apologetic worth
of miracles (suggested by a remarkable speech of Bp. Wilberforce in
the Town Hall, Oxford, Nov. 28, 1846. See _Oxford Herald_ of Dec. 5)
is perhaps hardly sufficient. In Serm. VI. the view that the early
church held the doctrine of atonement implicitly rather than
explicitly, in life rather than dogma, till Anselm’s time, is
insufficient and liable to convey an erroneous impression. (See Bp.
Thomson’s restatement of the historic question in _Aids to Faith_,
pp. 339-352.) The revelation of God in the New Testament is most
express on the subject of substitutional atonement. Of this the
writer of these Sermons never had any doubt; but he now thinks that
there are clearer evidences of it in the fathers than he had stated.
Reasons are perceivable in the circumstance of the constant struggle
against heathen religions, in which the fathers were involved, which
led them to dwell on the incarnation rather than on the atonement.
Anselm only gave expression to the doctrine which the apostles had
clearly taught.
1058 There are congregations of reformed Jews in some countries who
reject the Talmud as a system of interpretation. They are Jewish
protestants. Their standpoint only differs from that of the old Jews
in laying stress on the ethical aspect of religion. Sermons by one
of them, the Rabbin Marks, have lately been published in England. It
will be understood from the above account that the modern Jews
include three parties; the orthodox Jews, the reformed, and the
rationalistic.
1059 Cfr. Hävernick’s _Introd. to Old Test._ (E. T.) § 23, 24.
1060 Cfr. Bp. Horsley’s _Letters against Priestley_, Lett. xvi, p. 264.
1061 The nearest English parallel to the teaching of Arminius personally
(as distinct from that of his successors), on the quinquarticular
controversy, is the doctrine of John Wesley. The nearest parallel to
the general views of Episcopius and Limborch was Hey of Cambridge at
the close of the last century.
1062 A sketch of Priestley is given in Mr. Martineau’s _Miscellanies_.
1063 But see Pressensé, _Hist. de l’Eglise_, 2e Ser. t. ii. p. 154.
1064 The transition of the word _miscreant_ from its original meaning of
misbeliever (mécroyant, miscredente), to its modern use as a mark of
opprobrium, is a similar instance. This change is a proof of the
instinctive association of the dependence of right conduct on right
belief. It is about the time of Shakspeare that the change of
meaning begins to appear. See _Richardson’s Dictionary,_ _sub voc._
1065 It is hardly necessary to state, that when the tone of the English
theological writers of the eighteenth century is described as
rationalism, it is used in a good sense. (E.g. _Essays and Reviews_,
Ess. vi.) The writers of that century would be classified under the
school of supernaturalists here named.
1066 In the time of Napoleon I. the circumstance that the ideological
philosophers sympathised with the Revolution, in opposition to his
regime, led to an application of the term as synonymous with
Republican.
1067 These references to Guhrauer were kindly suggested by the Rev. E. H.
Hansell, Prælector of Theology in Magdalen College, who studied the
Fragments a few years ago for lectures which he delivered on
Lessing.
1068 For a description of the division of Theological study implied by
this term, see Credner’s Introduction to Kitto’s _Bibl. Cyclop._;
and the translation of Tholuck’s Lectures, given in the American
_Bibloith. Sacra_, 1844.
1069 Hegel used to claim that his doctrine was merely giving expression
to the ancient speculations of Heracleitus concerning the union of
opposites. It is probable that the fundamental idea was the same,
but Hegel supplied an interpretation and application of the
principle which the ancient philosopher could not contemplate. Both
in truth committed the same fundamental mistake, of making the mind
the measure of things. The union of opposites is an act of thought,
not a fact relating to things.
1070 This statement is taken from a paper on the history of German
Theology, in the _Spectator_, May 24, 1862.
1071 His work on _Dogmatique_ is in his earlier manner.
1072 The strict difference would be, that analogy is the resemblance of
ratios, where the objects, in which the ratios are perceived, are
not known to be referable to the same general class; παράδειγμα on
the contrary where they are so.
1073 A plan of arrangement of this kind is used by Mr. Bolton in the
Hulsean Prize Essay for 1852, _The Evidences of Christianity, as
exhibited in the writings of the Apologists down to Augustine_.
1074 Cfr. Gerard, _Compendium of Evidences_, 1828, part ii. ch. i.
1075 Notes 14, 15, 17, 19, afford illustrations bearing upon the same
subject.
1076 This remark is only intended to apply to the apologetic writings,
which are not the best works, of the fathers. In the fourth century
we meet with a group of fathers of a higher type of mind than those
of the first three; e.g. Eusebius Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories,
Ambrose, and Jerome. Speaking generally, however, the three writers,
Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustin, are probably the only ones who had
minds of the highest class, and who thoroughly exceed the
contemporary heathen writers of their day in mental penetration,
freshness, and compass, respectively. If we have compared Origen in
mind with Hugo St. Victor, and Schleiermacher, as a Christian
philosopher (Lect. VI.), we might also venture to compare Augustin
with Aquinas or Calvin, in power to grasp systematic truth; and
Chrysostom with Bernard, and in some respects with Bossuet, in
eloquence, learning, and vigour. Eusebius perhaps almost demands a
place with these three, but he was a man of knowledge rather than
originality.
_ 1077 Démonstrations Evangeliques_: (tome 1.) _de Tertullien, Orígène,
Eusèbe_ (Præp. Ev.); (2.) _Eusèbe_ (Dem. Ev.), _S. Augustin,
Montaigne, Bacon, Grotius, Descartes_; (3.) _Richelieu, Arnauld, De
Choiseul du Plessis-Praslin, Pascal, Pélisson, Nicole_; (4.) _Boyle,
Bossuet, Bourdaloue, Locke, Lami, Burnet, Malebranche, Lesley,
Leibnitz, La Bruyére, Fenelon_; (5.) _Huet, Clarke_; (6.) _Duguet,
Stanhope, Bayle, Leclerc, Du Pin_; (7.) _Jacquelot, Tillotson, De
Haller, Sherlock, Le Moine, Pope, Leland_; (8.) _L. Racine,
Massillon, Ditton, Derham, D’Aguesseau, De Polignac_; (9.) _Saurin,
Buffier, Warburton, Tournemine, Bentley, Littleton, Seed, Fabricius,
Addison, De Bernis, J. J. Rousseau_; (10.) _Pard du Phanjas, Le roi
Stanislas, Turgot, Stattler, West, Beauzée_; (11.) _Bergíer; Gerdil,
Thomas, Bonnet, De Crillon, Euler, Delamarre, Caraccioli, Jennings_;
(12.) _Duhamel, S. Liguori, Butler, Bullet, Vauvenargues, Guenard,
Blair, De Pompignan, De Luc, Porteus, Gérard_; (13.) _Diessbach,
Jacques, Lamourette, Laharpe, Le Coz, Du Voisin, De la Luzerne,
Schmitt, Pointer_; (14) _Moore, Silvio Pellico, Lingard, Brunati,
Manzoni, Paley, Perrone, Lambruschini, Dorléans, Campien, Fr.
Pérennès_; (15.) _Wiseman, Buckland, Marcel de Serres, Keith,
Chalmers_; (16.) _Dupin Aíné, Grégoire XVI_; (17.) _Cattet, Milner,
Sabatier_; (18.) _Bolgeni, Morris, Chassay, Lombroso et
Consoni—contenant les apologies de 117 auteurs, répandues dans_ 180
vol.; _traduites pour la plupart des diverses langues dans
lesquelles elles avaient été écrites; reproduites integraiement non
par extraits. Ouvrage également nécessaire à ceux qui ne croient
pas, à ceux qui doutent, et a ceux qui croient_, 20 vol. in 4to.
Prix: 120 fr. Chaque volume se vend séparément, 7 fr. The references
in the above title are to the volumes of the work.
There is an important article on the literature of Apologetics in
the _North British Review_, No. 30, August 1851, the writer of which
says that the claim that the above works are translated
“integralement” is not literally correct; passages which assault the
church of Rome being omitted. He considers that among the works of
the above-named series which are not known in England, the most
important are, Stattler, _Certitude de la Religion révèlée par Jesus
Christ_; Beauzée, _Exposition des Preuves Historiques de la Religion
Chrétienne_; Abbè Para du Phanjas, _Les Principes de la Sainte
Philosophie conciliés avec ceux de la Religion_; Cardinal de Vernis,
_La Religion Vengée_; Cardinal Polignac, _Anti-Lucretius_.
1078 In naming the _Boyle Lectures_, it may be permitted to the writer of
these lectures to express the regret which he has often felt, that
there is no history written of the various apologetic Lectures, and
of the works which they called forth, such, e.g. as the Boyle
(1692), Lady Moyer (1719), Warburton (1772), Bampton (1760),
Donnellan (1794), and Hulsean Lectures (1820), in the Church; and
the Lime Street (1730), Berry Street (1733), Coward (1739), and
Congregational Lectures (1833), among the Dissenters; and more
generally that there is no history of English theology and of
English theological literature. Much as we need a fair account of
the English Church, viewed in its external and its constitutional
history, we still more need a history which would enter into the
inner life, and give its intellectual and spiritual history. Such a
work would not only give a detailed account of the various works on
evidence and of the other literature, but would enter into the
causes and character of the various schools of thought which have
existed in each age,—e.g. of the struggle of semi-Romanist and
Calvinistic principles in Elizabeth’s reign:—in the next age, the
reproduction of the teaching of the Greek as distinct from the Latin
Fathers in Andrewes and Laud; the Arminianism of Hales and
Chillingworth; the Calvinism of the Puritans: again, later, the rise
of the philosophical latitudinarianism of Whichcote, More, and
Cudworth; the theological position of the non-jurors; the Arian
tendencies of Clarke and Whiston; the cold want of spirituality of
divines of the type of Hoadley; the reasoning school of Butler, the
evangelical revival of Wesley and Simeon; and, in the nineteenth
century, the philosophical revival under Coleridge, and the
ecclesiastical in the Tracts for the Times. Subjects like these, if
treated not only in a literary manner, but in connection with their
philosophical relations, would lift the history above a merely
national purpose, and make it a lasting contribution to the history
of the human mind. If executed worthily, such a work might take a
rank along with the grand works on literature of Hallam. Much as the
present taste for documentary history is to be commended, and the
publication of ancient historic documents to be desired, it is to be
hoped that it will not lead to the divorce of history from
philosophy. History becomes mere antiquarianism, if the philosopher
is not at hand to build its parts into the general history of
humanity. Philosophy becomes an hypothesis, if it is disconnected
from the actual exemplification of its principles on the theatre of
the world.
1079 Paley’s argument has been extended to the Gospels and other parts of
Scripture by the lamented Professor Blunt. (Cfr. also his Essay on
Paley, reprinted from the _Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1828.)
1080 The course for 1849, on the Evidences, by Mr. Michell, marked the
commencement of the consciousness of the spread of free thought; but
was not directed to the novel foreign forms of it.
1081 The Lectures however of Dr. Hessey in 1860, though directed to a
different subject, evince a knowledge of the literary studies of
foreign theologians.
1082 The writer hopes that the note on p. 374 will not be considered an
ungenerous censure of Mr. Rogers, who is selected because he is the
ablest and wisest of those writers who have used this argument.
1083 It is hardly necessary to state, that Mr. Maurice and Mr. Goldwin
Smith, besides others, have criticised this work in distinct
publications.
1084 Ellis’s work on _The Knowledge of Divine Things_, 1811, breathes a
similar spirit in modern times. Cfr. Note 44.
1085 The anti-Straussian Literature described in Note 38 is an
illustration of the German apologetic.
1086 Dr. Pusey also, in his _Hist. Inq. on German Theol._ p. 2. ch. v,
quoted many passages illustrative of the history of the same fact.
He has, however, subsequently disavowed all concurrence in the
opinions of the writers cited.
1087 Among writers who lived earlier than the periods alluded to in the
passages of Lectures III. and VIII., the following are also cited in
the works before named: Origen (_Comm. in Joan._ ii. 151. ed. Huet),
Jerome (_Comm. in Gal._ iii. vol. iv); Augustin (_in Joan_, iv. 1);
Zuinglius (_Schrift.-von Usteri_, ii. 247); Calvin (_Comm. on Hebr._
ii. 21. Rom. iii. 4. Rom. ii. 8); Bullinger (on 1 Cor. x. 8).
Castellio (_Dial._ ii. _de Elect._ on Rom. ix), Erasmus (on Matt.
ii); Grotius (_Vot pro Pac. art. de Can. Script._); Episcoplus
(_Inst. Theol._ iv. § 1). Passages of Hooker and Chillingworth were
also cited by Mr. Stephen.