LEADER 06279nam 2200649 450 001 9910511430403321 005 20170924213848.0 010 $a90-04-32143-8 024 7 $a10.1163/9789004321434 035 $a(CKB)3710000000720857 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001682025 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)16507589 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001682025 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)14954039 035 $a(PQKB)10437615 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)16393850 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)14954040 035 $a(PQKB)24663948 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC4547311 035 $a(nllekb)BRILL9789004321434 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000720857 100 $a20160711h20162016 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcnu|||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aPierre Bayle dialogues of Maximus and Themistius /$ftranslated, edited, and introduced by Michael W. Hickson 210 1$aLeiden, Netherlands ;$aBoston, [Massachusetts] :$cBrill,$d2016. 210 4$d©2016 215 $a1 online resource (446 pages) 225 1 $aBrill's Studies in Intellectual History,$x0920-8607 ;$vVolume 256 225 1 $aBrill's Texts and Sources in Intellectual History ;$vVolume 18 300 $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph 311 $a90-04-32141-1 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $tFront Matter /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tIntroduction /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tAfterword /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tNotes on the Text /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tBibliography /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tForeword /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tIntroduction /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tAn Examination of Le Clerc?s Case against Bayle /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tFour Serious Problems with Le Clerc?s Objection That was Based on Several Inferences He Drew from Bayle?s Opinion /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tWhether Le Clerc?s Zeal was Delayed /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tLe Clerc?s Response to the Accusation of Socinianism /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tWhether It is Possible to Reject an Evident Proposition /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tWhat Le Clerc Said Concerning the Trinity and the Pyrrhonian Abbé /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tDiscussion of Le Clerc?s Remarks on the Three Propositions to Which Bayle Reduced His Own Position /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tRetortion of Le Clerc?s Accusations /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tThat Le Clerc Delivers Religion, as Well as Himself, Hands and Feet Bound, over to the Atheists /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tWhether Le Clerc Had Recourse to the Same Refuge as Bayle; An Addition to What He Said Concerning the Trinity /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tPlastic Natures /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tSeveral Remarks on Origenism /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tWhat is the Nature of Tolerance According to Le Clerc? /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tGeneral Reflections on the Proceedings of Le Clerc against Bayle /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tIntroduction /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tWhether Jaquelot is an Arminian Neophyte /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tFirst of Jaquelot?s Faults: He Attacked Bayle?s Doctrine without Admitting That He Knew That It was the Same as That of the Reformed, and He Pretended to Believe That It was Very Different /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tSecond of Jaquelot?s Faults: He Believes That the Same Doctrine is Innocent or Blameworthy Depending on the Intentions of Those Who Teach It /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tThird of Jaquelot?s Faults: He Claims That Bayle Removes Every Sort of Freedom from Man /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tWhether There is Something That Could Have Misled Jaquelot. Two Characteristics of Bayle?s Dictionary /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tFourth of Jaquelot?s Faults: He Attacks Bayle on the Agreement of Faith and Reason, yet in the End He Says the Same Thing as Bayle /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tExamination of the Three Differences That Jaquelot Found between His and Bayle?s Doctrines /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tReflection on the Phrases ?Abandoning Reason? and ?being Contrary to Reason? /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tThat It Appears by the State of the Question Given by Bayle That There is No Real Dispute between Him and Jaquelot /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tFifth of Jaquelot?s Faults: He Sought a Compromise That Nobook-body Needed /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tExamination of Jaquelot?s Reply to the Difficulties Concerning the Origin of Evil. He Abandons Common Notions /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tWhether Jaquelot Should Have Focused on the Question of Whether Bayle Believes That God is the Author of Sin /$rMichael W. Hickson -- $tExamination of the Five Principles That Jaquelot Substituted for the Common Notions That He Rejected /$rMichael W. Hickson. 330 $aDialogues of Maximus and Themistius is the first English translation of Pierre Bayle?s last book, Entretiens de Maxime et de Thémiste , published posthumously in 1707. The two parts of the Dialogues offer Bayle?s final responses to Jean Le Clerc and Isaac Jaquelot, who had accused Bayle of supporting atheism through his writings on the problem of evil. The Dialogues defends Bayle?s thesis that the problem of evil cannot be solved by reason alone, but serves only to demonstrate the necessity of faith. In his Introduction to the Dialogues , Michael W. Hickson provides detailed historical and philosophical background to the problem of evil in early modern philosophy, as well as summary and analysis of Bayle?s debates with Le Clerc and Jaquelot. 410 0$aBrill's studies in intellectual history ;$vVolume 256. 410 0$aBrill's studies in intellectual history.$pBrill's texts and sources in intellectual history ;$vVolume 18. 606 $aCalvinism$vEarly works to 1800 606 $aTheodicy$vEarly works to 1800 606 $aGood and evil$vEarly works to 1800 608 $aElectronic books. 615 0$aCalvinism 615 0$aTheodicy 615 0$aGood and evil 676 $a231/.8 700 $aBayle$b Pierre$f1647-1706,$0160491 702 $aHickson$b Michael W. 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910511430403321 996 $aPierre Bayle dialogues of Maximus and Themistius$92549398 997 $aUNINA