reasonableness of Atheism' (1669); J. M.'s 'Atheist Silenced' (1672); John Howe's 'Living Temple, against Atheism, or Epicurean Deism' (First Part, 1675); Ralph Cudworth's 'True Intellectual System of the Universe, wherein all the Reason and Philosophy of Atheism is confuted, and its Impossibility demonstrated' (1678); Richard Bentley's 'Boyle Lecture: A Confutation of Atheism' (1692); J. Edwards's 'Thoughts on the Causes and Occasions of Atheism' (1695); and A. B.'s 'Mystery of Atheism, or the Devices to Propagate it' (1699).

A continuous stream of attacks on atheism flowed from the press all through the eighteenth century. A mere catalogue of them would fill many pages. It is a fact which merits to be carefully noted, that during the long period which intervened from about the middle of the sixteenth to about the middle of the eighteenth century, notwithstanding the multitude of books written against atheism, scarcely any-perhaps none-appeared in its defence. Its assailants were rather at war with a tendency or frame of spirit prevalent in society, than with definite forms of atheism, strictly so called. Their application of the terms atheism and atheist was generally very loose-often quite reckless. Epicureanism, even when combined with Deism, Hobbism, and Spinozism, were long treated as the chief manifestations of atheism. There were probably, however, in the period referred to, a large number of real atheists, although they did not consider it desirable to propagate their opinions through the printing-press.

Attempts were early made to sketch the history of atheism, as, e.g., by Niemann in 1668, Reiser in 1669, Jenkins Thomas in 1709 (1716), and Reimann in 1725. But there is even at present no general history of atheism of much value. One of the most ridiculous works of

458

Anti-Theistic Theories.

a historical character on atheism is the 'Dictionnaire des Athées' (1799), by the enthusiastic atheist, P. S. Maréchal. Here Justin Martyr, Saint Augustine, Pascal, Bossuet, Leibnitz, and the most virtuous and pious men of all ages, are glorified as atheists. In partial excuse it must be remembered that Reimann, in the excess of his Protestant zeal, has enlarged his list of atheists with Roman Catholic divines, and that Roman Catholic writers have frequently relegated the reformers and other Protestant theologians to the same category.

From the very rise of a specifically anti-atheistical literature, the desire was manifested to trace the causes of atheism, but the harsh and illiberal mode of viewing differences of opinion so long and widely prevalent, had a very injurious effect on the investigation. Much that is excellent on this subject will be found vigorously stated by Prof. J. S. Blackie in his 'Natural History of Atheism' (1877).

The question, whether or not atheism is compatible with morality and with political security and prosperity, was keenly and fully discussed in numerous writings published in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The history of this controversy, which is a remarkable testimony to the intellectual influence of Machiavelli and Bayle, deserves to be written. It seems quite forgotten and unknown at present.

In Note II. of Appendix to 'Theism,' I have indicated the works in which the relation of religion to morality seems to me to have been most thoughtfully discussed. Reference may also be made to the paper by W. H. Mallock on "Modern Atheism: its Attitude towards Morality," in the 'Contemporary Review,' Jan. 7, 1877.

NOTE V., page 44.

LANGE'S HISTORY OF MATERIALISM.

The only general History of Materialism worthy of mention is the 'Geschichte des Materialismus' of F. A. Lange. Few works in the department of philosophy have recently attracted so much attention or been so highly praised.

It everywhere shows clearness, vigour, and critical. acuteness of intellect, a wide acquaintance with the positive sciences, a competent knowledge of the writings of the chief ancient and modern materialists, and the power of natural and spirited expression. It has no claim, however, to be considered as in any sense an epoch-making book, and is not without great faults. Strictly speaking, it is not a history of materialism, but a history of science, written on the assumption that the whole world of knowledge can alone be explained by matter and mechanism. It is, to a far larger extent, an. exposition of the theories and a discussion of the problems which seem to its author to bear on materialism, than an account and criticism of directly materialistic speculations. It nowhere gives evidence of original research or great erudition, and has thrown little new light on any period of the history the course of which it traces. The view which it presents of the history of the opposition to materialism is most inadequate through

The ability of materialists, and the worth of their writings are, in general, overestimated.

The work is divided into two books, the one devoted to materialism before Kant, and the other to materialism

since Kant. The former book contains four sections. The first section treats of materialism in antiquity, or rather in classical antiquity, for nothing is said about the materialism of China or India, or any other nation than Greece and Rome. The special subjects of its five chapters are the atomism of Democritus; the sensationalism of the Sophists and the ethical materialism of Aristippus; the reaction of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle against materialism and sensationalism; the doctrine of Epicurus; and the poem of Lucretius. The second section is occupied with the transition period, which extends from the decay of the ancient civilisation to Bruno, Bacon, and Descartes. The third section deals with the materialism of the seventeenth century, and has three chapters, which are devoted respectively to Gassendi, as the restorer of Epicureanism; to Hobbes ; and to Boyle, Newton, Locke, and Toland. The fourth section treats of the materialism of the eighteenth century. It contains, first, an account of the influence of English materialism on France and Germany; next, an exposition of the materialistic views of La Mettrie; then an analysis of Holbach's 'System of Nature;' and finally, an estimate of the reaction against materialism in Germany-an estimate which takes into account the philosophy of Leibnitz, Wolfianism, and German Spinozism.

The second book of Lange's 'History of Materialism' is likewise divided into four sections. Section first discusses the Kantian philosophy in its relation to materialism, and then describes the phases of the socalled philosophical materialism propagated by Feuerbach, Max Stirner, Büchner, Moleschott, and Czolbe. Section second consists of four chapters, which have for

their subjects the bearing of materialism on exact research, the relation between matter and force, scientific cosmogony, and Darwinism and teleology. The third section treats of man's place in the animal world, the relation of brain and soul, scientific psychology, the physiology of the organs of sense, and the world as representation. The last section deals with ethical materialism and religion.

The most general results at which Lange arrives are, that there is no genuine science except that which explains phenomena in terms of matter and motion; that all our mental capacities, and even the laws of intuition and thought, must be traceable to the elements and organisation of the brain; that all material objects, including the brain and the organs by which we perceive, think, and will, are mere phenomena or experiences; that no other world can be known by us than the phenomenal and empirical world, which must be elucidated by materialism and mechanism; that philosophy is not science, and has nothing to do with truth, but should be cultivated as a poetry of notions; that religion is essential to human nature, but must be entirely severed from belief; and that philosophy and religion, when thus understood, will afford a solid basis for moral and æsthetic culture, secure social progress, and vastly benefit humanity. The doctrine composed of these propositions has been actually hailed by a rather numerous class of persons as itself a philosophy which triumphantly refutes materialism, and worthily completes the work of Kant. But in spite of their noisy and foolish applause, I venture to affirm that if German philosophy should have for its ultimate outcome this conglomerate of materialism, scepticism, and nonsense, it will have to