History of Free Thought in Reference to The Christian Religion Part 23

The further works of defence produced in this century arose as it were accidentally. The lengthy summary of the Mahometan controversy in Hoornbeek's _Summa Controversiarum_, 1653, p. 75 seq. was either introduced merely to give completeness to the work as a treatise on polemic, or was called forth by considerations connected with missions, as is made probable by his work _De Conversione Gentilium et Indorum_. Le Moyne's publication on the subject in the _Varia Sacra_, vol. i. 1685, arose from the accidental discovery of an old treatise, _Bartholomaei Edess. Confutatio Hagareni_. A third work of this kind, Maracci's _Criticism on the Koran_, 1698, arose from the circ.u.mstance that the pope would not allow the publication of an edition of the Koran, without an accompanying refutation of each part of it. The work of Hottinger (_Hist.

Orient._ b. i.), Pfeiffer's _Theol. Judaica et Mahom._ and Kortholt's _De Relig. Mahom._ 1663, form the transition into an independent literary investigation; which is seen in the literary inquiries concerning the life of Mahomet, as well as his doctrine, in Poc.o.c.k, Prideaux 1697, Reland 1707, Boulainvilliers 1730, and the translation of the Koran by Sale 1734.

A slightly controversial tone pervades some of them. The materials collected by them were occasionally used by deist and infidel writers (e.g. by Chubb), for inst.i.tuting an unfavourable comparison between Christ and Mahomet.

The great literary historians of that period give lists of the previous writers connected with the investigation. See J. A. Fabricius, _Biblioth.

Graec._ ed. 1715, vol. vii. p. 136; Walch, _Biblioth. Theol. Sel._ vol. i.

chap. v. sect. 9. A summary of the arguments used in the controversy is given in J. Fabricius, _Delectus Argumentorum_, p. 41, &c. and Stapfer's _Inst. Theol. Polem._ iii. p. 289, &c.

3. In the present century the literature in reference to Mahometanism is, as in the former instances, twofold in kind. Part of it has been called forth by missionary contests in the east; part by literary or historic tastes, and the modern love of carrying the comparative method of study into every branch of history.

The first cla.s.s is ill.u.s.trated by the discussions at s.h.i.+raz in 1811, between the saintly Henry Martyn and some Persian Moollas. The controversy was opened by a tract, sophistical but acute, written by Mirza Ibrahim; (Lee, pp. 1-39); the object of which was to show the superiority of the standing miracle seen in the excellence of the Koran, over the ancient miracles of Christianity. Martyn replied to this in a series of tracts (Lee, p. 80 seq.), and was again met by Mohammed Ruza of Hamadan, in a much more elaborate work, in which, among other arguments, the writer attempts to show predictions of Mahomet in the Old Testament, and in the New applying to him the promise of the Paraclete (Lee, pp. 161-450). These tracts were translated in 1824, with an elaborate preface containing an account of the preceding controversy of Guadagnoli, by Professor S. Lee of Cambridge, _Controversial Tracts on Christianity and Mahometanism_, which is the work so frequently cited above. To complete the history it is necessary to add, that a discussion was held a few years ago between an accomplished Mahometan and Mr. French, a learned missionary at Agra.

The literary aspect of the subject, not however wholly free from controversy, was opened by White, in the _Bampton Lectures_ for 1784; and abundant sources have lately been furnished. Among them are, Sprenger's _Life of Mahomet_, 1851, and Muir's, 1858. Also a new translation of the Koran by the Rev. J. M. Rodwell, where the Suras are arranged chronologically. The following ought also to be added, Dr. Macbride's _Mahometan Religion Explained_, 1857; Arnold on Mahometanism, 1859; Tholuck's _Vermischte Schriften_, i. (1-27); _Die Wunder Mohammed's und der Character des Religionstifters_; Dr. Stanley's _Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church_, lect. viii. and the references there given; Maurice's _Religions of the World_; and Renan's _Etudes d'Histoire Religieuse_. (Ess. iv.) The modern study has been directed more especially to attain a greater knowledge of Mahomet's life, character, and writings; the antecedent religious condition of Arabia;(1059) and the characteristics of Mahometanism, when put into comparison with other creeds, and when viewed psychologically in relation to the human mind.

The materials also for a study of the Mahometan form of philosophy, both in itself and in its relation to the religion, have been furnished by Aug.

Schmoelders, _Essai sur les Ecoles Philosophiques chez les Arabes_, 1842.

See also Ritter's _Chr. Phil._ iii. 665 seq.; iv. 1-181.

Note 6. p. 12. Unitarianism.

It may be useful to indicate the chief stages of the history of Unitarianism, and the sources of information with regard to it, as it bears a close a.n.a.logy to some forms of free thought, such as deism,(1060) and connects itself more or less nearly with forms of rationalism which occur in the course of the history.

The first instance of it is in the early ages, either as a Jewish Gnostic sect, Ebionitism, or in some of the other forms of Gnosticism; pa.s.sing in the east into Arianism, which lowered G.o.d, and in the west into Pelagianism, which elevated man. For this period see F. Lange, _Geschichte und Lehrbegriff d. Unitarier vor d. Nicaenischen Synode_, 1831; Hagenbach's _Dogmengeschichte_, -- 23; and the church histories which treat of this period.

In the middle ages the tendency may be considered to be mainly represented by Mahometanism, and hardly exists at all in the Christian church.

Its modern form arises at the time of the Reformation.

1. Originating in Italy, it exists as a doctrine in Switzerland and Germany from 1525-1560. See F. Trechsel's _Die Protest. Ant.i.trinitarier vor Faustus Socinus_, 1844. The best known names are Servetus, Lelio Sozini, and Ochino.

2. It exists as a church at Racow in Poland, where the exiles found a refuge. Here Faustus Sozinus (1539-1603), nephew of Lelio, and J.

Crellius, are the best known names. In 1609 Schmelz drew up the Socinian Formula, the Racovian Catechism. It was also here that the collection of Socinian writers, the _Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum_, 1626, was published. The history of the sect up to this point may be found in the Introduction to _Rees's Translation of the Racovian Catechism_, 1818. Also see Hallam's _History of Literature_, i. 554. ii. 335; Mosheim's _Church History_, sixteenth century, --2. P. ii. ch. iv; Hase's _Church History_ (Engl. Transl.), -- 371, 2. The Socinians were driven out of Poland in 1658, by the influence of the Jesuits; and, pa.s.sing into Holland, became absorbed in the church of the Remonstrants or Arminians.

3. The next stage of Socinianism is, as a doctrine, in England in the seventeenth century. In 1611 two persons, Hammont and Lewis, suffered martyrdom for it; and it spread widely during the Long Parliament. (See Dr. Owen's _Vind. Evangel._ pref.) The chief teacher was J. Biddle (1615-1662). The interest of it arises from its supposed parallelism to the Arminianism of Hales in the time of Charles I, and to the lat.i.tudinarian party of Whichcote and More in that of Charles II. But the parallel is not quite correct. The study of Arminius's writings (see J.

Nicholls's translation, 1825,) shows that he was not a Pelagian,(1061) if even his successors were. But even Episcopius and Limborch hardly reached this point. Hales resembled Episcopius. Nor is the parallel much nearer with "the lat.i.tude men;" for Socinianism lacked their Platonizing tendency. The Arian tendency, which commenced at the end of the century, both in the church, in such writers as Whiston and Clarke, and among the presbyterians, offers a nearer parallel, in being, like Socinianism, Unitarian in tendency. On this period see Hagenbach's _Dogmengesch_.

(Notes to -- 234.)

4. Its next form, was as a set of congregations in England in the eighteenth century, chiefly arising out of the presbyterians; marked by great names, such as Lardner, Lowman, Priestley.(1062) Shortly before the close of the century, it was introduced into America.

5. Its last form is a modification of the old Socinian view, formed under the pressure of evangelical religion on the one side and rationalist criticism on the other. The accomplished writers, Channing in America and Mr. J. Martineau in England, are the best types of this form. Priestley, Channing, and Martineau, are the examples of the successive phases of modern Unitarianism: Priestley, of the old Socinianism building itself upon a sensational philosophy; Channing, of the attempt to gain a larger development of the spiritual element; Martineau, of the elevation of view induced by the philosophy of Cousin, and the introduction of the idea of historical progress in religious ideas. In reference to this part of the history see E. Renan's Essay on Channing, _Etudes de l'Hist. Relig._ p.

357; E. Ellis's _Half Century of Unitarian Controversy_ (in America), 1858; J. J. Taylor's _Retrospect of Religious Life in England_, 1845; Dr.

Beard's _Unitarianism in its Actual State_; and other references given in the notes to H. B. Smith's translation of Hagenbach's _Dogmengesch_. New York, 1862. ii. p. 441.

In addition to the above references, materials for the history will be found in Sandius, _Biblioth. Ant.i.trin._ 1684; Bock's _Hist. Ant.i.trin._ 1774; Otto Foch's _Der Socinianismus_, &c. 1847; and an article in the _North British Review_, No. 60, for May 1859. The history of the controversial literature on the subject is given in Pfaff's _Introd. in Hist. Theol. Lit._ vol. ii. p. 320 seq.; and more fully in Walch's _Biblioth. Theol. Select._ vol. i. p. 902 seq. For a digest of the arguments used in the controversy, see Hoornbeek's _Summa Controv._ 1653, p. 440; J. Fabricius, _Consid. Var. Controv._ pp. 99-208; and Stapfer's _Inst. Theol. Polem._ vol. iii. c. 12.

Note 7. p. 24. Cla.s.sification Of Metaphysical Inquiries.

(_a_) This first subdivision of Metaphysics into Psychology and Ontology is very neatly stated by Professor Mansel (art. _Metaphysics in Encycl.

Britann._ 8th ed. p. 555, and p. 23 in the reprint of the article, 1860); Cfr. also Archer Butler's _Lect. on Phil._ vol. i. lect. i-iii.

(_b_) It must be understood, that when we pa.s.s here from a division of the inquiries concerning the mind to a supposed division of the mind itself, we imply only a division of states of consciousness or mental functions, not an absolute and real division of the mind itself. Distinctness of structure is only the inference; distinctness of function is a fact, given in the act of consciousness.

(_c_) The distinctness of the Will, as a faculty, from the emotions will be disputed by many. It is maintained by Maine de Biran, and the Eclectic school of France. Mr. Mill, _Logic_, vol. ii. b. vi. ch. ii, implies the contrary, and regards Will to be a particular state of feeling.

(_d_) The difference of the presentative from the representative consciousness is now generally understood, since the arguments of Sir W.

Hamilton have been commonly known. See his edition of Reid, note B. p.

804; _Discussions_, Ess. ii. and _Lect. on Metaphysics_; Mansel's work above cited, p. 560, 584; Morell's _Phil. of Relig._ ch. ii.

(_e_) The separation of Intuition from Perception is a point much disputed. It is maintained by Sch.e.l.ling and by Cousin, and made familiar by Coleridge, _Aids to Reflection_, i. p. 168 seq. See also Morell's _Philos. of Relig._ ch. ii; _Hist. of Phil._ ii. p. 487 seq. Among English psychologists however, intuition is identified with perception; or if slightly distinguished, as by Mr. Mansel, it is made synonymous with every "presentative" act of consciousness, and thus includes the consciousness of our own minds, as well as the sensational consciousness usually denoted by the word "perception." With reference to the view intended on this subject in these lectures, see a note on p. 28.

(_f_) With reference to these schools, see Morell's _Hist. of Philosophy_ (vol. i. Introduction); and Cousin's _Cours de la Philosophie_ du 18me Siecle.

(_g_) This subdivision of the subject matter of Ontology is well stated by Mansel in the _Encyc. Britann._ above cited, 603, 613 seq. This work of Mr. Mansel is on the whole the clearest exposition of Psychology, studied from the side of consciousness, which has appeared. Mr. Morell's recent work on Psychology presents a view different from his former ones, and unites the physiological treatment of the inquiry; being borrowed partly from the recent speculations which the teaching of Herbert has induced in Germany. See Note 41.

Note 8. p. 28. Quotation From Guizot On Prayer.

The following eloquent remarks seem worth quoting, as ill.u.s.trative of the instinct in the soul of man to perform the act of prayer; the natural outgoing of the human soul after the infinite Being. They are taken from Guizot, _L'Eglise et la Societe Chretienne_, 1861.

"Seul entre tous les etres ici-bas l'homme prie. Parmi ses instincts moraux, il n'y en a point de plus naturel, de plus universel, de plus invincible que la priere. L'enfant s'y porte avec une docilite empressee.

Le vieillard s'y replie comme dans un refuge contre la decadence et l'isolement. La priere monte d'elle-meme sur les jeunes levres qui balbutient a peine le nom de Dieu et sur les levres mourantes qui n'ont plus la force de le p.r.o.noncer. Chez tous les peuples, celebres ou obscurs, civilises ou barbares, on rencontre a chaque pas des actes et des formules d'invocation. Partout ou vivent des hommes, dans certaines circonstances, a certaines heures, sous l'empire de certaines impressions de l'ame, les yeux s'elevent, les mains se joignent, les genoux flechissent, pour implorer ou pour rendre graces, pour adorer ou pour apaiser. Avec transport ou avec tremblement, publiquement ou dans le secret de son cur, c'est a la priere que l'homme s'adresse, en dernier recours, pour combler les vides de son ame ou porter les fardeaux de sa destinee; c'est dans la priere qu'il cherche, quand tout lui manque, de l'appui pour sa faiblesse, de la consolation dans ses douleurs, de l'esperance pour sa vertu." (p.

22.)

"Il y a, dans l'acte naturel et universel de la priere, une foi naturelle et universelle dans cette action permanente, et toujours libre, de Dieu sur l'homme et sur sa destinee." (p. 24.)

" 'Les voies de Dieu ne sont pas nos voies:' nous y marchons sans les connaitre; croire sans voir et prier sans prevoir, c'est la condition que Dieu a faite a l'homme en ce monde, pour tout ce qui en depa.s.se les limites." (p. 25.)

Note 9. p. 31. On The Modern View Of The Historical Method In Philosophy.

It has been implied in the text, at this place, and also in the preface, that the "historic method of study" is the great feature of this century.

The term is ambiguous. The meaning of it however is, that each problem ought to be approached from the historic side. Whether the problem be a fact of society, or of thought, or of morals, in each case the questions are asked-What are its antecedents? how did it happen? How came it that men accepted it?-This is a method exactly the reverse of that which was common in the last century. The question then was, Is a thing true? The question now is a preliminary one, How came it that it was thought to be true? It is probable that in many minds there is a slight tendency to pantheism in this method of study. The universe is looked at as ever in course of development; evil as "good in the making;" no fact as wholly bad; no thought as wholly false. But, without involving such a tendency, whatever is true in the method may be appropriated. It starts only with the a.s.sumption that the human race is in a state of movement; and that Providence has lessons to teach us if we watch this movement. It is the method of learning by experience of the past, a lesson for conduct in the future.

The method thus explained, however, is used for two different purposes.

Either it is intended to be the preliminary process preparatory to discovery, or it is designed to take the place of discovery. In the former case, we ask why men have thought a thing true, for the purpose of afterwards discovering, by the use of other methods, what is true; in the latter we rest content with the historical investigation, and consider the attempt to discover absolute truth to be impossible; and regard the problem of philosophy to be, to gather up the elements of truth in the past. In the former case truth is absolute, though particular ages may have blindly groped after it; in the latter it is relative. In the former, the history of philosophy is the preliminary to philosophy; in the latter it is philosophy. In the former, philosophy is a science; in the latter it is a form of criticism. The former view is held by the school of Sch.e.l.ling and Cousin; the latter is an offshoot of that of Hegel. The former marked French literature until recent years; the latter is expressed in it at the present time; and is stated by no one so clearly as by Renan and Soberer.

Most English writers will justly prefer the former view; but the explanation of the latter, given in the two pa.s.sages which follow, is expressed with such clearness, and will be of so much use in explaining subsequent allusions in these lectures (especially Lect. VII. and VIII.), that it is desirable to print it here.

"Le trait caracteristique du 19e siecle est d'avoir subst.i.tue la methode historique a la methode dogmatique, dans toutes les etudes relatives a l'esprit humain. La critique litteraire n'est plus que l'expose des formes diverses de la beaute, c'est a dire des manieres dont les differentes familles et les differentes ages de l'humanite ont resolu le probleme esthetique. La philosophie n'est que le tableau des solutions proposees pour resoudre le probleme philosophique. La theologie ne doit plus etre que l'histoire des efforts spontanes tentes pour resoudre le probleme divin. L'histoire, en effet, est la forme necessaire de la science de tout ce qui est soumis aux lois de la vie changeante et successive. La science des langues, c'est l'histoire des langues; la science des litteratures et des philosophies, c'est l'histoire des litteratures et des philosophies; la science de l'esprit humain c'est, de meme, l'histoire de l'esprit humain, et non pas seulement l'a.n.a.lyse des rouages de l'ame individuelle.

La psychologie n'envisage que l'individu, et elle l'envisage d'une maniere abstraite, absolue, comme un sujet permanent et toujours identique a lui-meme; aux yeux de la critique la conscience se fait dans l'humanite comme l'individu; elle a son histoire. Le grand progres de la critique a ete de subst.i.tuer la categorie du _devenir_ a la categorie de _l'etre_, la conception du relatif a la conception de l'absolu, le mouvement a l'immobilite. Autrefois, tout etait considere comme etant; on parlait de philosophie, de droit, de politique, d'art, de poesie, d'une maniere absolue; maintenant tout est considere comme en voie de se faire....... A ce point de vue de la science critique, ce qu'on recherche dans l'histoire de la philosophie, c'est beaucoup moins de la philosophie proprement dite que de l'histoire."-(E. Renan, Pref. to _Averroes_, p. vi.)