Page images

[Among the ablest defenders of the Christian system against these assaults were, Richard Bentley in his Boyle Lectures, and in his reply to Collins ; Richard Baxter, S. Clarke, Sherlock, in reply to Woolston; the dissenter, James Foster,'' and Bishop Stillingfleet; Bishop Butler in his admirable Analogy, and many others.']


[ocr errors]

· [Francis Bacon, Baron of Verulam, b. 1561, d. 1626. Works by Basil Montagu, 16 vols., Lond., 1825-34 ; new edition by Spedding and Ellis, Lond., 1857, 89., reprinted, Boston, 1860, 89. (The Advancement of Learning, 1605; Essays, 1597-1624 ; Novum Organum, 1620; De Augmentis Scient., 1623). Comp. Chs. de Remusat, Bacon, sa Vie, sa Philosophie, etc., Paris, 1857. Kuno Fischer, Franz B. von Verulam; die Realphilosophie, Leipz., 1856, transl. by Oxenford, Lond., 1857. G. L. Craik, Bacon and his writings, new ed., 1860. W. H. Dixon, Personal Hist. of Lord B., Lond, and Bost., 1860. De Maistre, Bacon, 2 vols., Paris.--The philosophy of Bacon was expounded by the French school, in a spirit foreign to that of its author, applying its principles of induction to the supernatural as well as the natural sphere. Bacon made a broad distinction between the two, and he himself believed in the fundamental principles of the Christian faith ; see his Literary and Professional Works, vol. 2. His real spirit is expressed in the petition contained in the Preface to the Instauratio Magna: “ We suppliantly beseech, that things human may not injure things divine; and that nothing of darkness and unbelief, with reference to the divine mysteries, may arise in our minds from the unlocking of the road for the senses, and the greater enkindling of natural light.")

• [John Locke, b. 1632, d. 1704. Works, 3. fol., 1714, and often ; 10th ed., Lond., 10 vols., 1801. Life, by Lord King, 2d ed., 2 vols., Lond., 1830. The principles of his Essay on the Human Understanding, were opposed by bp. Stillingfleet, 1697-99. His Reasonableness of Christianity gave the tone to the apologetic literature of the period. Comp. § 237, note 2.]

[Thomas Hobbes, of Malmsbury, b. 1588, d. 1679. Works by Sir Wm. Molesworth, 16.vols., Lond., 1839–55. (Leviathan, 1651 ; Tripos; on Liberty and Necessity, 1654). He was opposed by Cudworth, in his Intei. System; by Cumberland, De Legibus Naturæ; by Parker, De Deo; by bp. Bramhall, on Necessity, and Catching the Leviathan, 1658; by abp. Tenison, 1670; by Lord Clarendon, in his Survey of the Leviathan. Though reckoned among the deists, his principles subverted the basis of morality as well as religion, substituting external authority for moral obligation. For the literature of his controversies, etc. see Allibone, Dict. of Authors. Hobbes, Lehre über Staat u. Kirche, by Elster, in Deutsche Zeitschrift, Aug., 1855.]

. [Edward Herbert, Lord Cherbury, b. 1851, d. 1648. De Veritate, Paris, 1624, Lond., 1633. De Religione Gentilium, Amst., 1663, in English, Lond., 1704. Life, written by himself, 1764. He reduced the truths of natural religion to five points: 1. Being of God; 2. Duty of Worship; 3. Virtue and piety; 4. Repentance; 5. Retribution in this world and the next. He was answered by Locke, Baxter, Gassendi, Halyburton, Leland ; and by



[ocr errors]


Kortholt, De tribus impostoribus (Herbert, Hobbes, and Spinoza), Hamb. 1701.)

[Charles Blount, b. 1654, committed suicide 1693. Anima Mundi, 1679; Religio Laici; Oracles of Reason, 1695. Life of Apollonius of Tyana, fol., Lond., 1680; a French version, 1775, 4 vols., Berlin. Replies by Nicholls, Conference with a Theist, 2 vols., 3d ed., 1723; Van Mildert's Boyle Lectures]

[John Toland, of Ireland, b. 1669, d. 1722. Christ. not Mysterious, Lond., 1696 ; an Apology for Mr. T. by himself, written the day before his book was resolved to be burnt by the Committee of Religion, 1697; Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile, and Mohamed. Christianity, 2d ed, 1718; Collection of Pieces, 2 vols., Lond., 1726. His Amyntor, or Defence of Milton's

, Life, 1699, was also designed to show that the canon of the New Test. is uncertain; replied to by Samuel Clarke, 1699, in Richardson's canon of New Test., and in Jones' New and Full Method of settling the Canonical Authority, 1726, 2, 8vo., a 3d vol., 1727. His Christ. not Mysterious was answered by John Norris, abp. Synge, of Tuam, and bp. Browne, of Cork. His Adeisidæmon sive Titus Livius, and Origines Judaicæ, were published at the Hague, 1709, and answered by La Fave, of Utrecht, in his Defensio Religionis, 1709, and Benoit, of Delft, in his Mélanges de Remarques critiques, etc., 1712.]

[Anthony Collins, b. 1676, d. 1729 : Essay on the Use of Reason, 1707 ; on Immortality, in the Dodwell Controversy, 1707-8; Priestcraft in Perfection, 1710; History of XXXIX. Articles, 1724 (Bennett's Essay in reply to the former book, 1815); Vindication of the Divine Attributes, 1710; Discourse on Freethinking, 1713-a French version, much altered, at the Hague, 1714. His work was replied to most conclusively by Dr. Bentley, in his Remarks upon a late Discourse on Freethinking, by Philaleutherus Lipsiensis, 1713, 1719, 1743, transl, into several tongues. Collins' Inquiry Concerning Liberty and Necessity, 1715-17 (in French, by Des Maizeaux, 2 vols., 1720). His discourse of the Ground and Reason of the Christ. Religion, 1724. This work was occasioned by Whiston's work on Prophecy, and Collins takes the ground, that prophecy is the principal evidence, but that no prophecy can be proved except by allegorical interpretations. His Scheme of Literal Prophecy, in defence, was published in 1727. This attack on prophecy made a great noise. In reply, bishop Chandler, 1725, A Defence of Christ. from the Prophecies; Samuel Chandler, Vindication, 1725; Sykes, on the Truth of Christ. Religion, 1725; Whiston, Supplement to the Literal Accomplishment, 1725; Thos. Sherlock, Use and Intent of Prophecy; Moses Lowman, Argument from Prophecy, 1733 ; Review of the Controversy, by Thos. Jeffrey, 1726, who also wrote Christ. the Perfection of all Religion, 1728.]

. [Thomas Woolston, b. 1669, d. 1733, next attacked the miracles, in his Discourses on the Miracles, 1727, for which he was sentenced to a year's imprisonment and a fine of one hundred pounds; the work reached a 6th ed., 1729 ; Defence, 2 Parts, 1729–30. He zealously advocated the allegorical interpretation, in opposition “ to the ministry of the letter.” Some twenty replies were published : bishop Pearce, of Rochester, Miracles Vind.,

[ocr errors]


1729; bp. Smalbrook, Vindication, 2 vols.; Lardner's Vind. of Three Mira. cles, 1729 ; particularly bp. Sherlock, Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection, 1729, 14 editions published (the French author, Peter Annet, attacked this 15 years afterwards); Stackhouse, State of the Controversy, 1730.]

• [Matthew Tindal, b. 1657, d. 1733; Rights of Christ. Church, and Defence, 1706–9; his Christ as Old as the Creation was published when he was 73 years old, in 1730, the ablest work in vindication of the perfection of natural religion. In reply, bp. J. Conybeare, Defence of Revealed Relig. ion, 1732; Thos. Burnet, Conferences; Waterland, Script. Vindicated; Law's Case of Natural Religion; also Stebbing, Balguy, Foster (see below), and others. One of the ablest of these was John Leland's Answer, 2 vols., Dublin, 1733, Lond., 1740.]

· [Thos. Morgan, d. 1743 ; his chief work was, The Moral Philosopher, 3 vols., Lond., 1737, 2d ed., 1738, and Defence, in professed opposition to “Judaistic Christianity;" in reply, J. Chapman, Eusebius, the True Christian's Defence, 1739 ; Leland, Divine Authority of Old and New Test., 1739 ; Lowman, on Civil Government of Hebrews, 1740. The controversy was continued by the deistic tract Christianity not founded in Argument-replies by Benson and Randolph; and by another tract on the Resurrection of Jesus, answered by West and Littleton (see Leland's Deistical Writers, i. Letters, xi. xii.)—Thomas Chubb, b. 1679, d. 1747; the Previous Question with regard to Religion, 1725; Three Facts, 1727; Reason and Religion, 1731; Posthumous Works, 6 vols., 1754, etc.]

" [The Earl of Shaftesbury, b. 1671, d. 1713. The Moralist, 1709; Sensus Communis, 1710. His Characteristics, 3 vols., 1711-23, are intended to exalt virtue at the expense of revealed religion, making virtue its own reward, needing no religious sanctions. John Brown, Essays on the Characteristics, 1750; see also Mackintosh, Progress of Ethical Science, Memoirs of Shaftesbury, 2 vols., Lond., 1860.]

" [Bernard Mandeville, b. in Holland, 1670, removed to England, d. 1733. The Fable of the Bees; or, Private Vices Public Benefits, 2 vols., Lond., . 1714. William Law's Remarks on the Fable of the Bees, with an Introd. by F. D. Maurice, Cambr., 1844. Bishop Berkeley's Minute Philosopher, written in Newport, R. I., and published 1732, was intended as a reply to Mandeville, whose opinions are there represented by Lysicles.]

[Hon. Robert Boyle, son of Earl of Cork, b. 1626, d. 1891. Works, O vols., 4to. Lond., 1772, with Life by T. Bird. The Boyle Lecture Sermons were founded “ to prove the truth of the Christian Religion against infidels, without descending to any controversies among Christians." A collection, from 1691 to 1732 was published in 1739, in 3 vols., folio. Richard Bentley (b. 1661, Regius Prof. Divin., Cambridge, 1716, d. 1742), gave the first course, a Confutation of Atheism; for his work against Collins, see Note 7, above; Bentley's works, by A. Dyce, 3 vols., 1856 ; life by Bishop Monk, Lond., 1830; Correspondence, 2 vols., 1842. Samuel Clarke's Demonstration of Being and Attributes of God, and his Sermons on Natural Religion were the Boyle Lectures for 1704-5; he also wrote in reply to Dodwell on Immortality, and to Toland's Amyntor.— W. Whiston, wrote in the same




. 13

series, 1707, on Scripture Prophecy.Richard Baxter wrote on the Unreasonableness of Infidelity, and on Reasons for Christian Religion, against Her. bert, etc. (Works, vols. 20, 21).-James Foster, b. 1697, d. 1753, published an able Defence of the Christian Religion, against Tindal; 3d ed., 1734.On Clarke, see $ 225, b., Note 51 ; on Sherlock, ib., Note 24; on Whiston, ib., Note 52.]

[On Stilling fleet, comp. $ 225, b., Note 24; his Origines Sacræ, or Rational Account of the Grounds of the Christian Religion, was publ. fol., Cambre, 1701 ; 2, 8vo., Oxf., 1837.-Joseph Butler, bp. of Durham, b. at Wantage, Berkshire, 1692, Preacher at the Rolls, 1718, Bp. of Bristol, 1738, and of Durham, 1746, d. 1752. Works, new ed., Oxford, 2 vols., 1837, 1849, New York, 1844; with Life by Samuel Halifax, Bp. of Gloucester. His Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature, was published in 1733—rebutting the deistical arguments against revealed religion by their own concessions about natural religion. His correspondence, at the age of nineteen, with Dr. Clarke, on some of Clarke's arguments for the Being of God, exhibited great acuteness. His Sermons on Human Nature were said by Dr. Chalmers, to be “the most precious repository of sound ethical principles extant in any language." The Analogy has been frequently edited ; in England by bp. Wilson, 7th ed. 1846, Wilkinson, 1847, Angus, .1855, Steere, 1857; in America by bp. Hobart, Teft, Albert Barnes, Emory and Crooks, Malcolm. Among the other writers in this controversy were Whitby, Necessity of the Christian Religion (against Herbert), Lond., 1705; Thos. Halyburton, (b. 1674, Prof. Div. St. Andrews, 1710, d. 1712), Natural Religion Insufficient, 1714, against Herbert and Blount; William Law (b. 1686, a Non-juror, d. 1711), The Case of Reason, or Natural Religion fairly and fully stated, in reply to Tindal; A. A. Sykes (b. 1684, Prebend. Salisbury, 1723, d. 1736), Essay on the Truth of the Christ. Religion, against Collins, 1725 ; Richard Smalbroke (b. 1672, bp. of Lichfield, 1730, d. 1749), A Vindication of the Miracles of our blessed Saviour, in answer to Mr. Whiston, 2 vols., Lond., 1729–31-an able work; Thos. Broughton (b. 1704, d. 1774), Christianity distinct from the Religion of Nature, in reply to Tindal, 3 parts, 1732; John Norris, Reason and Faith in Relation to the Mysteries, Lond., 1697; Chs. Leslie (comp. $ 225, b.), Short and Easy Method with Deists (works, 7 vols., 8vo., Oxf., 1832); Peter Browne (bp. of Cork and Rosse, d. 1735), Answer to Toland's Christ. not Mysterious, 1697 ; Procedure and Limits of Human Understanding (a Supplement to the above), 2d ed., 1729; Simon Browne (Dissenter, b. 1680, d. 1732), Defence of Religion of Nature, etc., against Tindal, Lond., 1732; Remarks on Woolston, 1732; John Leland (b. 1691, d. 1766), Remarks on H. Dodwell's Christianity not founded on Argument, 1744 ; Divine Authority of the Old and New Testament ; Defence of Christianity, in Answer to Tindal; Advantage and Necessity of Christian Religion; View of the Principal Deistical Writers.]

$ 239.


[ocr errors]

To facilitate the survey of the history of doctrines during the present period, it will be necessary to begin, in the special part of it, with those doctrines which most distinctly represent the doctrinal differences between the two greater ecclesiastical bodies—i. e. the opposition between Roman Catholics and Protestants—and then pass over to those in which these sections of the church were more or less agreed (in contrast with the minor sects), and where the antithesis between Romanism and Protestantism either becomes of minor importance or entirely disappears. To the first class belong the doctrine concerning the sources of religious knowledge (which may be said to constitute the formal principle of Romanism and Protestantism); the doctrine respecting man, sin, justification, and redemption in which the so-called material principle of Protestantism and Romanism respectively, is brought out); and lastly, those doctrines which most clearly display the logical consequences of both these principles—viz. the doctrines of the church,' of the sacraments (with the exception of baptism), and of purgatory (which forms a part of eschatology).' To the second class belong theology proper, and christology, the doctrine of baptism, and eschatology (with the exception of purgatory).

Here, too, we must have constant regard to the subordinate antagonism between the Lutherans and the Reformed (Calvinists), which first came out in the doctrine respecting the Lord's Supper, afterwards in the doctrine of predestination, and was also exhibited on other points, without however involving on either side an abandonment of the common ground of Evangelical Protestantism in its fundamental principles. Here, too, may be considered the deviating views of the lesser religious parties, somewhat receding from the general Protestant principles, so far as they bear upon those doctrinal points.

The doctrine concerning the church also belongs, in a certain aspect, among the fundamental controverted points, especially in the Roman Catholic point of view; see the treatise of Baur in answer to Möhler's Symbolik, p. 60, ss.

But the views of Protestants concerning the church resulted rather from their principles on other points.

• It has, indeed, its inconveniences, thus to separate the different points embraced in the locus about the sacraments, and in eschatology; but the advantage is found in presenting Symbolism in its true and natural relation to the whole History of Doctrines, thus facilitating a general view of the antagonistic positions. In the doctrines that have respect to Theology, and Christology, and in the doctrine respecting Baptism, come up the chief points of opposition between the larger churches and the sects (Unitarians, Anabaptists).



« PreviousContinue »