Telesius, Patritius, Bruno, and Campanella, who followed more or less in the wake of Nicolas of Cusa, and whose philosophy was pre-eminently a philosophy of nature. In some instances this natural philosophy was marked by a theosophic vein.

As the main currents of philosophy in the preceding ages might be traced back to Plato and Aristotle, so a review of modern philosophy carries us back to two eminent representatives, Francis Bacon and René Descartes. The same relative rank, to be sure, cannot be assigned to the later as to the earlier philosophers. Bacon and Descartes appear as less towering figures in the modern group, than do Plato and Aristotle in the ancient. Still they are to be accredited with an analogous position, and are of prime importance as representing diverse philosophical tendencies destined to long-continued and powerful influence in the realm of thought. Bacon and Descartes were alike opposed to the over-valuation of the syllogism characteristic of scholasticism. Both saw that it was rather a means of arranging the known, than of discovering the unknown. Both insisted upon analysis, or a sifting process, as the necessary antecedent of trustworthy conclusions. Both made greater thoroughness of method a prime demand. But from this point they diverged. Bacon directed the attention outward. His maxim was: Observe, experiment, carefully examine and arrange the results, and turn them to practical account in life. Observation and induction, according to him, are the pathway to certain knowledge, and knowledge is to be made subservient chiefly to utilitarian ends. Descartes, on the other hand, directed the attention within. His maxim was: Retire into the depths of your own consciousness, examine the contents of your own mind, find out its fundamental intuitions, the ideas which it cherishes with invincible clearness and force, and use them as the basis of all certain knowledge. Intuition and deduction, according to him, are the principal instruments in the dis

covery of truth. Bacon's philosophy was in the line of empiricism and sensationalism; Descartes's had affinity with idealism.

Bacon (1560-1626) gave a limited range to philosophy; in fact, substantially identified it with natural science. Even such a question as the nature of the soul he regarded as largely beyond its sphere. "Although," he says, "I am of opinion that this knowledge may be more really and soundly enquired, even in nature, than it hath been; yet I hold that in the end it must be bounded by religion, or else it will be subject to deceit and delusion; for as the substance of the soul in the creation was not extracted out of the mass of heaven and earth, but was immediately inspired; so it is not possible that it should be (otherwise than by accident) subject to the laws of heaven and earth, which are the proper subject of philosophy; and therefore the true knowledge of the nature and state of the soul must come by the same inspiration that gave the substance." (Advancement of Learning.) As respects the truths of revealed religion, he declares emphatically and repeatedly, that philosophy is not to meddle with them. The following statements from the treatise just quoted will serve to illustrate his position. "By the contemplation of nature to induce and to enforce the acknowledgment of God, and to demonstrate His power, providence, and goodness, is an excellent argument, and has been excellently handled by divers. But on the other side, out of the contemplation of nature, or ground of human knowledges, to induce any verity or persuasion concerning the points of faith, is in my judgment not safe. Da fidei quæ fidei sunt. For the heathen themselves conclude as much in that excellent and divine fable of the golden chain: that men and gods were not able to draw Jupiter down to earth; but contrariwise, Jupiter was able to draw them up to heaven. . . . To seek heaven and earth in the word of God, whereof it is said, Heaven and earth shall pass, but my word shall not pass, is

to seek temporary things amongst eternal; and as to seek divinity in philosophy is to seek the living amongst the dead, so to seek philosophy in divinity is to seek the dead amongst the living. . . . Sacred theology is grounded only upon the word and oracle of God, and not upon the light of nature. . . . The prerogative of God extendeth as well to the reason as to the will of man; so that as we are to obey His law, though we find a reluctation in our will, so we are to believe His word, though we find a reluctation in our reason. For if we believe only that which is agreeable to our sense, we give consent to the matter and not to the author. . . The use of human reason in religion is of two sorts; the former, in the conception and apprehension of the mysteries of God to us revealed; the other, in the inferring and deriving of doctrine and direction therefrom. The former extendeth to the mysteries themselves; but how? by way of illustration, and not by way of argument. The latter consisteth indeed of probation and argument. For after the articles of religion are placed and exempted from examination of reason, it is then permitted unto us to make derivations and inferences from and according to the analogy of them for our better direction." Thus Bacon made as wide a chasm between theology and philosophy as the most extreme of the nominalist school had done. An obvious motive for his procedure was a desire to secure for philosophy an unrestricted freedom in the realm of nature. In all probability Bacon entertained a genuine respect for the Christian faith. Nevertheless, the limited scope which he allowed to reason in matters of religious belief will appear to many the reverse of a compliment to revealed religion.

No doubt it would be wrong to hold Bacon responsible for Hobbes (1588-1679). The former would have repudiated most emphatically many of the cardinal conclusions of the latter. Still, the system of Bacon was not without a degree of affinity with that of his friend Hobbes. The

two appear related as initial tendency and extreme development. Hobbes pushed on at once to a radical type of sensationalism. His psychology is purely materialistic, affirming that sensation is the basis of all mental activities, and that sensation is nothing but motion in the internal parts of a sentient being caused by the physical impact of external objects. Different psychological terms, such as sensation, memory, imagination, volition, etc., stand simply for these internal motions or vibrations, viewed at different stages or in different relations. Spirit, save as an accident of body, or as a peculiar kind of body, has no existence. To speak of incorporeal substance is to indulge a radical contradiction of terms. Naturally, on this physical theory there is no room for freedom in the sense of self-determination. Every volition is as strictly necessitated as is any event in nature. Man's liberty is as the liberty of water to flow in the channel by which it is confined. (Leviathan, and Philosophical Rudiments.)

Hobbes did not challenge the truth of revealed religion. On the contrary, he quoted the Bible as authority, and to a degree that is perhaps not paralleled by any other philosophical writer. He refers to the Sacred Scriptures as "the speech of God." He commends an unquestioning acceptance of the mysteries of religion, and says that they have the best effect, when, like pills for the sick, they are swallowed whole. But despite this exterior coloring, his system in its natural tendencies is radically antagonistic to religion. To say nothing of other features, the almost unlimited authority over the opinions and practices of men which he assigns to the earthly sovereign, tends to rob religion of all its nobler sanctions and to relegate it to the miserable rank of a piece of statecraft. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that Hobbes puts the sovereign in the place of God. Whatever limitations some of his statements may seem to impose upon the authority of the ruler, they are mostly nullified when compared with other statements.

It matters little that he says that the laws of God must take precedence of those of the sovereign. For the sovereign is made by him the sole interpreter of all laws, sacred as well as secular, and "the word of an interpreter of the Scriptures is the word of God." (Phil. Rud.) It belongs to the magistrate to determine the Scriptural canon, to decide what doctrines are to be acknowledged, what forms of worship are to be tolerated, what external actions are to be reckoned virtuous or vicious. Whatever be his commands, they must be obeyed, unless they involve an affront to God, and the private reason must hesitate to call that an affront which the public reason declares is not. If the sovereign commands the worship of idols, though perhaps a subject of special eminence and influence had better submit to martyrdom than obey, an ordinary subject does well to obey. Commerce with another man's wife, if authorized by the sovereign, is no longer adultery. "By those laws, Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' 'Thou shalt not steal,' Honor thy father and mother,' nothing else was commanded but that subjects should absolutely obey their princes in all questions concerning meum and tuum, their own and others' right." In fine, there is very little in the system of Hobbes to qualify the force of the following sweeping statement of his: "The civil laws are to all subjects the measures of their actions, whereby to determine whether they be right or wrong, profitable or unprofitable, virtuous or vicious." (De Corpore Politico.)

6

Hobbes's theories were too extreme to command much acceptance. They were set forth also in a dogmatic way, and exhibit far more skill of assertion than fulness and cogency of argument. A successor of Bacon more genuine and influential by far was John Locke (1632-1704.) But before reaching Locke it is appropriate to notice a phase of philosophy outside of the main current in England. In opposition to the materialism of Hobbes and his conven