000			06232nam a2200517 i 4500
001			BRILL9789004321434
003			nllekb
005			20260610105600.0
007			cr un uuuua
008			160330s2016 mau sb 001 0 eng d
010			_a 2016015095
020			_a9789004321434 _q(electronic book)
020			_z9789004321410 _q(print)
024	7		_a10.1163/9789004321434 _2DOI
040			_aNL-LeKB _cNL-LeKB _erda
041	1		_aeng _hfre
050		4	_aBX9422.3
072		7	_aHBJD _2bicssc
072		7	_aHIS010000 _2bisacsh
082	0	4	_a231/.8 _223
100	1		_aBayle, Pierre, _d1647-1706.
240	1	0	_aEntretiens de Maxime et de Themiste ou reponse a l'examen de la théologie de Mr. Bayle. _lEnglish
245	1	0	_aPierre Bayle dialogues of Maximus and Themistius / _ctranslated, edited, and introduced by Michael W. Hickson.
264		1	_aBoston : _bBrill, _c2016.
300			_a1 online resource.
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _2rdacarrier
490	0		_aBrill's studies in intellectual history, _x0920-8607 ; _vv. 256
490	0		_aBrill's texts and sources in intellectual history ; _vv. 18
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
505	0	0	_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.
506			_aAvailable to subscribing member institutions only.
520			_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.
588			_aDescription based on print version record and CIP data provided by publisher; resource not viewed.
600	1	0	_aLe Clerc, Jean, _d1657-1736.
600	1	0	_aJaquelot, _cM. _q(Isaac), _d1647-1708.
650		0	_aCalvinism _vEarly works to 1800.
650		0	_aTheodicy _vEarly works to 1800.
650		0	_aGood and evil _vEarly works to 1800.
776	0	8	_iPrint version: _aBayle, Pierre, 1647-1706, author. _tPierre Bayle dialogues of Maximus and Themistius _dBoston : Brill, 2016 _z9789004321410 _w(DLC) 2016013390
830		0	_aBrill's Studies in Intellectual History _v256/18.
830		0	_aBrill's Studies in Intellectual History Online, Supplement 2016, ISBN: 9789004309685.
856	4		_zDOI: _uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004321434
999			_c40780 _d40780