Elucidations.

I.

(Substance or accident, p. 54.)

This essay is “rather the work of a philosopher than a bishop,” says Dupin. He assigns it to an age when “Aristotle began to be in some reputation,”—a most important concession as to the estimate of this philosopher among the early faithful. We need not wonder that such admissions, honourable to his candour and to his orthodoxy, brought on him the hatred and persecutions of the Jesuits. Even Bossuet thought he went too far, and wrote against him. But, the whole system of Roman dogma being grounded in Aristotle’s physics as well as in his metaphysics, Dupin was not orthodox in the eyes of the society that framed Aristotle into a creed, and made it the creed of the “Roman-Catholic Church.” Note, e.g., “transubstantiation,” which is not true if Aristotle’s theory of accidents, etc., is false.190 See Bacon’s apophthegm, No. 275, p. 172, Works, London, 1730. It assumes an exploded science.

II.

(Prerogative of the soul, p. 56.)

If this “Discourse” be worthy of study, it may be profitably contrasted, step by step, with Tertullian’s treatises on kindred subjects.191 Vol. iii. pp. 175–235, this series. That the early Christians should reason concerning the Soul, the Mind, the immortal Spirit, was natural in itself. But it was also forced upon them by the “philosophers” and the heretics, with whom they daily came into conflict. This is apparent from the Anti-Marcion192 Vol. iii. pp. 463, 474; also pp. 532, 537, 557, 570, and 587. of the great Carthaginian. The annotations upon that treatise, and those On the Soul’s Testimony and On the Soul, may suffice as pointing out the best sources193 Compare, also, Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 199, etc. of information on speculative points and their bearings on theology. Compare, however, Athenagoras194 E.g., vol. ii. p. 157, etc. and the great Clement of Alexandria.195 Vol. ii. pp. 440, 584 (Fragment), and what he says of free-will.