History of Free Thought in Reference to The Christian Religion Part 30

Note 46. p. 304. The Modern School Of Free Thought In The Protestant Church Of France.

The object of this note is to enumerate some of the chief of those theologians to whom allusion is made in the text, and to exhibit their relations to each other.

One of the best known is Colani, a pastor at Strasburg, the able editor of the _Nouvelle Revue de la Theologie_, and author of several volumes of sermons: also A. Reville, pastor of the Walloon church at Rotterdam, a frequent writer in the same Review, and in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_; Reuss, a professor at Strasburg, author of a history of the early church, in French, and _Beitrage zu den Theologischen Wissenschaften_, in German; Scherer, the friend of Vinet, once professor at Geneva, author of _Melanges de Critique Religieuse_, reprinted mostly from Colani's Review, of which the first four papers give his theological views on Inspiration, the Bible, and Sin.(1071)

The able critic, Michel Nicholas, professor at Montauban, author of _Etudes Critiques sur la Bible_, and _Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs pendant les deux siecles anterieurs a l'ere Chretienne_, probably may be cla.s.sed with the same; but he has not written on doctrine. A. Cocquerel _fils_, pastor at Paris, also is connected with Colani's Review, and is considered to possess the same sympathies.

The difference of the point of view of these writers from that of the Eclectic school would be, that while the latter would regard the human race as able to pa.s.s beyond Christianity, the former would only wish to get rid of the dogmas which they think have been superadded in the course of ages, and to return to the simple teaching of the sermon on the mount.

One writer more has been reckoned with the same party by the English public, E. De Pressense, a pastor in the free Protestant church at Paris, author of the Church History so often referred to in this volume, and of sermons on the _Sauveur_, and editor of the _Revue Chretienne_; but he appears to possess an evangelical and more orthodox tone than some of the above.

In truth there are two distinct parties in the movement which we are describing, each of which stands in a different relation to the older parties of the protestant church. At the beginning of the century the French protestant church held an unpietistic kind of supernaturalism, not very unlike that of Reinhard in Germany, of which the best living type is the eloquent and learned A. Cocquerel _pere_. About 1820 an awakening of the spiritual life of the church took place, under the action of the Spirit of G.o.d primarily, and through the agency of such ministrations as those of Adolphe Monod instrumentally. From the former school has arisen the movement seen in Colani and Reville; from the latter, that seen in Vinet and Pressense. The former is a change which has pa.s.sed over the old Lat.i.tudinarian school, much like those which in Germany have taken the place of the teaching of such men as Reinhard and Bretschneider. Of the pastors named above, who belong to this cla.s.s, A. Cocquerel _fils_ is the least removed from the ordinary creed. His stand-point may be compared to that of Schleiermacher, or of the school of Groningen. (See Note 41.) Reville and Colani advance very much farther. The other movement, of which Vinet of Lausanne was the cause, has sprung from the application of science to the newly-spreading views of evangelical religion. Vinet tried to harmonize religion and knowledge, by presenting Christianity on the ground of its internal rather than its external evidence, and proclaimed it as ethics built on doctrine; which doctrine he held to be built on historic fact. His position may be best compared with Neander's in Germany, or perhaps in some respects with that of Tholuck. Nearly the same position is a.s.sumed by Pressense at Paris, and Astie at Lausanne.

Pressense rests upon the Bible as the "formal principle" of theology, and the work of Christ as the "material."

The writer feels much hesitation in venturing to cla.s.sify these authors, which nevertheless seemed desirable on account of the spread of their writings in England. The above description, founded on personal study of their works, is confirmed by two criticisms on them; one by C. Remusat, in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Jan. 1862; the other in the _British Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1862. But care ought to be used in describing the actors in a movement which is not complete; and in making the attempt, to distinguish especially those who are conceived to deviate from vital truth in doctrine, from those who may differ in questions of literature or criticism. It is due to these writers to express admiration for their genuine love of intellectual and political liberty, much as we may be compelled to differ from their theological opinions.

Lecture VIII.

Note 47. p. 320. Modern Opinions With Respect To Mythology.

In the last century the opinions on the nature of mythology were two. That which taught that myths are distortions of traditions derived from the early Hebrew literature, was put forward in the seventeenth century, as early as philosophy was applied to the subject, by Huet and Bossuet, and retained its hold throughout the last century, and is advocated in the present by Mr. Gladstone (Work on Homer, vol. ii. ch. ii). The opposite theory interpreted myths by an Euhemeristic process, or allegorized them by regarding them as originally descriptions of the physical processes of nature. In the present century Creuzer (_Symbolik_, 1810) applied the method of comparison, and, studying Greek mythology in correlation with that of other countries, taught in a Neo-Platonic sense that myths are a second language, the echo of nature in the consciousness. Creuzers system was opposed by Lobeck about 1824, Voss, and G. Hermann, who objected to the excess of symbolism and the sacerdotal ideas implied in it; and by Ottfried Muller, and Welcker, on the narrower ground of a.s.serting the independence of Greek mythology from foreign influence. More recently the careful study of the Sanskrit language and early literature by Max Muller, Kuhn, &c. has thrown new light upon the subject; and the solution of the problem is now approached from the side of language, and not merely from that of tradition or monuments. The distinction of myth and legend is now clear; the family relations.h.i.+p between the myths of different nations is made apparent; the date in human history of their creation; and the cause of them is sought in the attempt to express abstract ideas by means of the extension of concrete terms. See the Essay on _Comparative Mythology_ by Max Muller, in the Oxford Essays for 1856. See also the Journal for Comp.

Phil. of Kuhn and Aufrecht. And for a criticism on Creuzer, see E. Renan's _Etudes d'Histoire Religieuse_ (Ess. i).

Note 48. p. 363. The External And Internal Branches Of Evidence.

It may be almost superfluous to name that the evidences are usually divided into 1. external, and 2. internal. Each of these requires a subdivision into (a) the divine, and () the human.

The _external divine_ are miracles and prophecy; the _external human_ are the historical proof as to the authenticity and genuineness of the literature which contains the narrative of the miracles and the prophecy.

The _internal divine_ are sought in the accordance of the materials of the Revelation, the character of Christ, the scheme of Redemption, &c. with the moral sense of man, and with the expectations which we should form antecedently of the contents of a revelation; the _internal human_, in the critical evidence of undesigned coincidence. Looked at logically, the second is like the corroboration of the testimony of a witness; the fourth, like cross-examining him. The first two may amount almost to demonstration, being what Aristotle (_Rhet._ i. 2.) would call te????a: the two latter have only the force of probability; the third being antecedent probability, e????; the fourth, the ??????? s?e???, or circ.u.mstantial evidence. The argument of a.n.a.logy used by Butler, which may be regarded as almost(1072) one form of Aristotle's pa??de??a (_Rhet._ ii. 20), (if looked at on its positive side, and not merely its negative, as disproof of objections,) comes under the third, inasmuch as it offers a series of principles obtained by generalization from the natural and moral world, which furnish an antecedent presumption of the character of any revealed scheme. The remarks in the text relate to tho comparative weight to be given to the first and third of the four cla.s.ses named above. The advantage of Butler's argument over the other cases of internal _a priori_ evidence is, that it is founded on previous careful induction; the other kinds of antic.i.p.ations are founded only on hasty empirical generalizations. For this view of the evidences, see Hampden's _Introduction to the Philosophical Evidences of Christianity_; Davidson's _Lectures on Prophecy_ (Introductory Lecture); and W. D. Conybeare's _Lectures on Theology_, ch. i.

Note 49. p. 366. The History Of The Christian Evidences.

As frequent references have been made to the subject of apologetic in connexion with the history of free thought, it seems desirable to give a brief literary history of the Evidences, and to indicate the works where further information may be obtained with regard to them.

There are two methods of studying the subject; either to cla.s.sify the Evidences in the manner of the last Note,(1073) and proceed to notice the ages in which, and the authors by whom, each portion of them has been developed, together with the causes which have called them forth; or else, to adopt the historic plan, and trace their gradual growth through the course of ages. By the latter method (if we exclude all that strictly belongs to the province of polemic as distinct from apologetic), we find the following controversies:-in the early centuries, the double contest against the Jews and against the Pagans; in the early middle ages, against the Mahometans without, and Freethinkers within, the limits of Christendom; at the Renaissance, against unbelief within the church: in more modern times, whilst the argument against the Jew has been called forth by contact with the Jewish denizens scattered through Europe, and the Mahometan has been occasionally excited by missionary labours; there has been the contemporaneous struggle within the church, against deism, atheism, and rationalism.

This history, it will be observed, is so complex, that it would be necessary to study each branch of the contest separately. Accordingly, we have treated in distinct notes the contests with the Jew (Note 4), and the Mahometan (Note 5); and there remain for study those which existed with the Pagan in the early ages, and with the various forms of scepticism in the later.

It will be convenient to cla.s.sify the inquiry, under the four epochs according to which we have studied the history of unbelief in the preceding lectures; viz. (1) the contest of Christianity with Paganism; (2) with the incipient free thought of the middle ages; (8) with the unbelief of the Renaissance; and (4) with the subsequent forms of unbelief, which it may be useful to cla.s.sify according to the countries where they have respectively appeared,-England, France, and Germany.

1. The apology or defence of Christianity against Pagans commences with the apostolic age.(1074) Its first form is seen in the missionary speech of St. Paul at Athens. The first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans also may be regarded as expressing the same ideas. The defence consisted in an appeal to the heart as well as to fact; to show the heathen the need of Christianity before presenting the statement of its nature, and the evidence of its divine character. In the second century, when it became gradually understood that Christianity was not a mere Jewish sect; and when the attack consisted in calumnies and persecutions, as stated in Lect. II. pp. 48, 54, the apologies especially were directed to repel the charges, or to demand toleration: (see Note 15.) In the third and fourth centuries the attack was more intelligent, and the statement of objections more definite; and the character of the apologies altered correspondingly.

There is some difficulty in arranging the early Apologies. A recent writer, Pressense, who has made a special study of them, has used, as his fundamental principle of cla.s.sification, the view which the authors took of the relation of the soul of man to Christianity; according to which he makes three cla.s.ses; the first, comprising those who thought that the soul of man was fitted for truth, and acknowledged the heathen religions as a preparation for Christianity; the second, those who, taking the same view of human nature, regarded the heathen religions as corruptions, and wholly injurious; and the third, those who took such a desponding view of human nature as to regard it as possessing no truth without revelation (_Hist._ vol. ii. ser. ii. p. 164-5.) As examples of the first cla.s.s, he cites Origen and most of the earlier fathers; of the second, Tertullian; of the third, Arn.o.bius. He thinks, but perhaps hardly rightly, that the chronological order in which the three views occurred, coincides also with this mode of arrangement. It will be evident that the first two cla.s.ses show an attempt to approach Christianity _a priori_, by arousing the sense of want; the last by "crus.h.i.+ng the human soul" by authority: the first of the three trying to open the way for the reception of Christianity, by describing it as the highest philosophy and religion; the second as the subst.i.tute for both; but both schools agreeing in describing it as the satisfaction of the world's yearnings. It will be also apparent why the presentation of the _a priori_ internal Evidences should precede the external. When the world had been impressed with the necessity of a new religion, then the opportunity came for employing the cogent power of the external and historic evidence which authenticates Christianity.

A less artificial manner however of studying the Apologies would be to view them in time, and in s.p.a.ce; i.e. according to their date, and the churches from which they emanate, whether Syrian, Alexandrian, Roman, or African; with the view of witnessing at once the alteration in the attack and the character of the apology which existed in different countries at one and the same time.

It appears worthy of notice however, that the attempt to find difference of treatment according to difference of country almost entirely fails. If applied as a principle of cla.s.sifying ma.n.u.scripts, or modes of exegesis, or liturgical uses, sufficient variety is exhibited to prove that the Christian church was a collection of provincial churches, each possessing its national peculiarity, each contributing to swell the general harmony by uttering its own appropriate note; but, when applied to the subject of apologetic, the method fails to show a difference in the method of defence which was simultaneously used in the great Christian army; which forms a proof of the facility of intercourse between different churches, and of the uniformity in the character of the attack directed simultaneously on the church in different lands. The change in the character of the Evidences with the growth of time, according to the alteration of attack described above, is apparent, but not the variation at the same date in different parts of the world. We shall therefore merely present a list, in which the apologists are arranged according to place and date, without attempting to draw inferences which cannot be supported.

The recent publication of Pressense's work, where the spirit of the apologies is given, together with an a.n.a.lysis of their contents, renders it unnecessary to offer here a full a.n.a.lysis of them, as had been intended. Other works indeed partially supplied the need previous to his.

Such, for example, were Houtteville's Introduction to _La Religion Chretienne prouree par des Faits_, containing an account of the authors for and against Christianity (translated 1739); Schramm's _a.n.a.lysis Patrum_, 1780; Scultetus's _Medull. Patr. Syntagma_, 1631; and for the Apostolic Fathers, the Introduction to Mr. Woodham's edition of Tertullian's _Apology_.

It will be sufficient accordingly to give a list of the writers, with a very brief mention of the object of their treatises,(1075) and to enumerate the literary sources from which further information may be obtained in respect to them.

_Table of the Early Apologists, according to Date and Place._

A.D. Rome and Africa. Athens. Alexandria. Syria.

Western Provinces.

150 [Aristides 130]; [Quadratus]; _Justin?_ 150; _Tatian_; _Athenagoras_; _Hermias?_ 200 _Tertullian_; Clement 190 _Theophilus_ _Minucius 180 Felix?_ 230 Cyprian; Origen 240 Commodian 300 _Arn.o.bius_ [Methodius]; _Lactantius_ _Eusebius_ Jul. Athanasius Chrysostom Firmicus; Ambrose; Prudentius 400 Orosius; _Augustin_ _Cyril_ Jerome?

Salvian Theodoret

N. B. The names in brackets are of authors whose apologies are almost wholly lost; those in italics are the ones which alone are usually mentioned in a list of apologists. To the above ought perhaps to have been added for completeness, Maternus, A.D. 350; Ephraim the Syrian; and Apollinaris of Asia Minor, who replied to Julian. The names marked with a note of interrogation denote those in reference to which the reader may demur to the cla.s.sification. Justin Martyr wrote at Rome; but he wrote in Greek, and was a Greek philosopher in spirit. Of Hermias little is known.

Jerome lived much in Syria, and leaned to the Syrian school of exegesis, so that he has been cla.s.sed with the Syrian church, though his intimacy with Augustin and his writing in Latin might rather have caused him to be cla.s.sed with the western. Also Minucius Felix ought perhaps rather to be cla.s.sed with the Roman than the African church.

We shall next state the purpose of the treatises of those Apologists, whose names are printed in italics in the table.

The first group consists of Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Hermias, and Theophilus; the first three of whom may be considered to express the defence of Christian philosophers, who were striving to explain the nature of Christianity, partly with a view to plead for toleration, partly to make converts.

Justin has left two apologies; one against the Jews, the other against the heathens; (a second against the heathens is a fragment.) In both he adopted the same plan, of first repelling prejudices, and then a.s.saulting his opponent. That which is directed against the Jews is a.n.a.lysed in Kaye's _Justin_, c. xi. In that which was directed against the heathens, he first repelled the charges made against Christians, such as atheism, Thyestean banquets, and treason against the state; and next, those made against Christianity, especially those which related to its late introduction, the person of Christ, and the doctrine of the resurrection.

In proceeding to a.s.sault heathenism, he endeavoured to show that it did not possess religious truth, and claimed that the points of agreement with Christian truth were borrowed; and after having thus shown the superiority of Christianity to heathenism, he endeavoured to show its divinity, by the internal evidence of its doctrines and effects, and by the external evidence of miracles and prophecies.

Tatian's treatise in substance was an invective against the pagans, on the absurdity and iniquity of the pagan theology and its recent origin, with a running comparison between it and Christianity.

The object of Athenagoras was to plead for toleration; and consequently he employed himself in vindicating the Christians from various charges, such as incest, Thyestean banquets; and retaliated the charges on the heathen.

The little work of Hermias, the date of which is uncertain, (see Lardner, _Cred._ ch. xxv. and Cave, _Hist. Lit._ lx.x.xi. is a kind of sermon on St.

Paul's words, "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with G.o.d." In an amusing manner, not unlike Lucian, he criticised the heathen philosophy, arguing its falsehood from the contradictory opinions held in it.

The form of Theophilus's work _Ad Autolyc.u.m_ is not unlike some of those which have preceded. Indeed the form was suggested by circ.u.mstances; being a defence of Christianity against particular charges, and the retaliation of similar ones on the heathens. He drew out the attributes of the true G.o.d, b. i; and afterwards exhibited the falsehood of the heathen religion and history, b. ii; defending Christians from the absurd charges made against them; and attempting to show the originality and antiquity of the Hebrew history and chronology, b. iii.