No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
In the century from 1750 to 1850, to use a phrase of Whitehead, there was a change in the “climate of opinion” in the Western World. Men ventured upon new paths with new methods of investigation and new tests of reality. A score of epoch-making books appeared between Rousseau's Social Contract and Emile, 1762, on the one hand, and Comte's Positive Philosophy, 1853, and Spencer's earliest writings on the other. John Fiske said: “In their mental habits, in their methods of inquiry and in the data at their command, the men of the present day who have fully kept pace with the scientific movements are separated from the men whose education ended in 1830 by an immeasurably wider gulf than has ever divided one progressive generation of men from their predecessors.” This change of viewpoint and method of approach to reality involved both intellectual disintegration and theological reconstruction.
1 Dorner, Isaac A., History of Protestant Theology, Particularly in Germany (Edinburgh, 1871) II, 347.Google Scholar
2 Der Kirchenfreund, I, 25.Google Scholar
3 Dorner, , History of Protestant Theology, II, 345–6.Google Scholar
4 Schaff, , What is Church History? 15.Google Scholar
5 Bibliotheca Sacra, LXXVII (1920), 33.Google Scholar
6 Schaff, 's Life by his son, 1839, p. 31.Google Scholar
7 See Dr. Reily's article on Nevin, Magasine of Christian Literature, 09 1891, pp. 324–326.Google Scholar
8 Preface to Nevin, , Anti-Christ or The Spirit of Sect and Schism (1848), p. 4.Google Scholar
9 Princeton Repertory, 1848Google Scholar, No. II The Mystical Presence pp. 207–227.Google Scholar
10 “Anti-Christ,” Preface, III–V.
11 Meroersburg Review, 10 1867, p. 632.Google Scholar
12 Reformed Church Messenger, 06 15, 1870.Google Scholar
13 Schaff, David S., The Life of Philip Schaff, p. 217.Google Scholar
14 “Theses for the Time,” appended to the English translation of Schaff, 's, The Principle of Protestantism (1845), pp. 177–190.Google Scholar
15 Mercersburg Review, 10 1867, p. 632.Google Scholar