CHAPTER VII.

OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH INTELLECT FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE SIXTEENTH TO THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

It is difficult for an ordinary reader, living in the middle of the nineteenth century, to understand, that only three hundred years before he was born, the public mind was in the benighted state disclosed in the preceding chapter. It is still more difficult for him to understand that the darkness was shared not merely by men of an average education, but by men of considerable ability, men in every respect among the foremost of their age. A reader of this sort may satisfy himself that the evidence is indisputable; he may verify the statements I have brought forward, and admit that there is no possible doubt about them; but even then he will find it hard to conceive that there ever was a state of society in which such miserable absurdities were welcomed as sober and important truths, and were supposed to form an essential part of the general stock of European knowledge.

But a more careful examination will do much to dissipate this natural astonishment. In point of fact, so far from wondering that such things were believed, the wonder would have been if they were rejected. For in those times, as in all others, every thing was of a piece. Not only in historical literature, but in all kinds of literature, on every subject--in science, in religion, in legislation--the presiding principle was a blind and unhesitating credulity. The more the history of Europe anterior to the seventeenth century is studied, the more completely will this fact be verified. Now and then a great man arose, who had his doubts respecting the universal belief; who whispered a suspicion as to the existence of giants thirty feet high, of dragons with wings, and of armies flying through the air; who thought that astrology might be a cheat, and necromancy a bubble; and who even went so far as to raise a question respecting the propriety of drowning every witch and burning every heretic. A few such men there undoubtedly were; but they were despised as mere theorists, idle visionaries, who, unacquainted with the practice of life, arrogantly opposed their own reason to the wisdom of their ancestors. In the state of society in which they were born, it was impossible that they should make any permanent impression. Indeed, they had enough to do to look to themselves, and provide for their own security; for, until the latter part of the sixteenth century, there was no country in which a man was not in great personal peril if he expressed open doubts respecting the belief of his contemporaries.

Yet it is evident, that until doubt began, progress was impossible. For, as we have clearly seen, the advance of civilization solely depends on the acquisitions made by the human intellect, and on the extent to which those acquisitions are diffused. But men who are perfectly satisfied with their own knowledge, will never attempt to increase it. Men who are perfectly convinced of the accuracy of their opinions, will never take the pains of examining the basis on which they are built. They look always with wonder, and often with horror, on views contrary to those which they inherited from their fathers; and while they are in this state of mind, it is impossible that they should receive any new truth which interferes with their foregone conclusions.

On this account it is, that although the acquisition of fresh knowledge is the necessary precursor of every step in social progress, such acquisition must itself be preceded by a love of inquiry, and therefore by a spirit of doubt; because without doubt there will be no inquiry, and without inquiry there will be no knowledge. For knowledge is not an inert and passive principle, which comes to us whether we will or no; but it must be sought before it can be won; it is the product of great labour and therefore of great sacrifice. And it is absurd to suppose that men will incur the labour, and make the sacrifice, for subjects respecting which they are already perfectly content. They who do not feel the darkness, will never look for the light. If on any point we have attained to certainty, we make no further inquiry on that point; because inquiry would be useless, or perhaps dangerous. The doubt must intervene, before the investigation can begin. Here, then, we have the act of doubting as the originator, or, at all events, the necessary antecedent, of all progress. Here we have that scepticism, the very name of which is an abomination to the ignorant; because it disturbs their lazy and complacent minds; because it troubles their cherished superstitions; because it imposes on them the fatigue of inquiry; and because it rouses even sluggish understandings to ask if things are as they are commonly supposed, and if all is really true which they from their childhood have been taught to believe.

The more we examine this great principle of scepticism, the more distinctly shall we see the immense part it has played in the progress of European civilization. To state in general terms, what in this Introduction will be fully proved, it may be said, that to scepticism we owe that spirit of inquiry, which, during the last two centuries, has gradually encroached on every possible subject; has reformed every department of practical and speculative knowledge; has weakened the authority of the privileged classes, and thus placed liberty on a surer foundation; has chastized the despotism of princes; has restrained the arrogance of the nobles; and has even diminished the prejudices of the clergy. In a word, it is this which has remedied the three fundamental errors of the olden time: errors which made the people, in politics too confiding; in science too credulous; in religion too intolerant.

This rapid summary of what has actually been effected, may perhaps startle those readers to whom such large investigations are not familiar. The importance, however, of the principle at issue is so great, that I purpose in this Introduction to verify it by an examination of all the prominent forms of European civilization. Such an inquiry will lead to the remarkable conclusion, that no single fact has so extensively affected the different nations as the duration, the amount, and above all the diffusion, of their scepticism. In Spain, the church, aided by the Inquisition, has always been strong enough to punish sceptical writers, and prevent, not indeed the existence, but the promulgation of sceptical opinions.[544] By this means the spirit of doubt being quenched, knowledge has for several centuries remained almost stationary; and civilization, which is the fruit of knowledge, has also been stationary. But in England and France, which, as we shall presently see, are the countries where scepticism first openly appeared, and where it has been most diffused, the results are altogether different; and the love of inquiry being encouraged, there has arisen that constantly-progressive knowledge to which these two great nations owe their prosperity. In the remaining part of this volume, I shall trace the history of this principle in France and England, and examine the different forms under which it has appeared, and the way in which those forms have affected the national interests. In the order of the investigation, I shall give the precedence to England; because, for the reasons already stated, its civilization must be deemed more normal than that of France; and therefore, notwithstanding its numerous deficiencies, it approaches the natural type more closely than its great neighbour has been able to do. But as the fullest details respecting English civilization will be found in the body of the present work, I intend in the Introduction to devote merely a single chapter to it, and to consider our national history simply in reference to the immediate consequences of the sceptical movement; reserving for a future occasion those subsidiary matters which, though less comprehensive, are still of great value. And as the growth of religious toleration is undoubtedly the most important of all, I will, in the first place, state the circumstances under which it appeared in England in the sixteenth century; and I will then point out how other events, which immediately followed, were part of the same progress, and were indeed merely the same principles acting in different directions.

[544] On the influence of the French literature, which, late in the eighteenth century, crept into Spain in spite of the church, and diffused a considerable amount of scepticism among the most educated classes, compare _Llorente_, _Hist. de l'Inquisition_, vol. i. p. 322, vol. ii. p. 543, vol. iv. pp. 98, 99, 102, 148; _Doblado's Letters from Spain_, pp. 115, 119, 120, 133, 231, 232; _Lord Holland's Foreign Reminiscences_, edit. 1850, p. 76; _Southey's Hist. of Brazil_, vol. iii. p. 607; and an imperfect statement of the same fact in _Alison's Hist. of Europe_, vol. x. p. 8. In regard to the Spanish colonies, compare _Humboldt_, _Nouv. Espagne_, vol. ii. p. 818, with _Ward's Mexico_, vol. i. p. 83.

A careful study of the history of religious toleration will prove, that in every Christian country where it has been adopted, it has been forced upon the clergy by the authority of the secular classes.[545] At the present day, it is still unknown to those nations among whom the ecclesiastical power is stronger than the temporal power; and as this, during many centuries, was the general condition, it is not wonderful that, in the early history of Europe, we should find scarcely a trace of so wise and benevolent an opinion. But at the moment when Elizabeth mounted the throne of England, our country was about equally divided between two hostile creeds; and the queen, with remarkable ability, contrived during some time so to balance the rival powers, as to allow to neither a decisive preponderance. This was the first instance which had been seen in Europe of a government successfully carried on without the active participation of the spiritual authority; and the consequence was, that for several years the principle of toleration, though still most imperfectly understood, was pushed to an extent which is truly surprising for so barbarous an age.[546] Unhappily, after a time, various circumstances, which I shall relate in their proper place, induced Elizabeth to change a policy which she, even with all her wisdom, perhaps considered to be a dangerous experiment, and for which the knowledge of the country was as yet hardly ripe. But although she now allowed the Protestants to gratify their hatred against the Catholics, there was, in the midst of the sanguinary scenes which followed, one circumstance very worthy of remark. Although many persons were most unquestionably executed merely for their religion, no one ventured to state their religion as the cause of their execution.[547] The most barbarous punishments were inflicted upon them; but they were told that they might escape the punishment by renouncing certain principles which were said to be injurious to the safety of the state.[548] It is true, that many of these principles were such as no Catholic could abandon without at the same time abandoning his religion, of which they formed an essential part. But the mere fact that the spirit of persecution was driven to such a subterfuge, showed that a great progress had been made by the age. A most important point, indeed, was gained when the bigot became a hypocrite; and when the clergy, though willing to burn men for the good of their souls, were obliged to justify their cruelty by alleging considerations of a more temporal, and, as they considered, a less important character.[549]

[545] Nearly two hundred years ago, Sir William Temple observed that in Holland the clergy possessed less power than in other countries; and that, therefore, there existed an unusual amount of toleration. _Observations upon the United Provinces_, in _Temple's Works_, vol. i. pp. 157-162. About seventy years later, the same inference was drawn by another acute observer, Le Blanc, who, after mentioning the liberality which the different sects displayed towards each other in Holland, adds, 'La grande raison d'une harmonie si parfaite est que tout s'y régle par les séculiers de chacune de ces religions, et qu'on n'y souffriroit pas des ministres, dont le zèle imprudent pourroit détruire cette heureuse correspondance.' _Le Blanc_, _Lettres d'un Français_, vol. i. p. 73. I merely give these as illustrations of an important principle, which I shall hereafter prove.

[546] 'In the first eleven years of her reign, not one Roman Catholic was prosecuted capitally for religion.' _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. i. p. 444; and the same remark in _Collier's Eccles. Hist._ vol. vii. p. 252, edit. 1840.

[547] Without quoting the impudent defence which Chief-Justice Popham made, in 1606, for the barbarous treatment of the Catholics (_Campbell's Chief Justices_, vol. i. p. 225), I will give the words of the two immediate successors of Elizabeth. James I. says: 'The trewth is, according to my owne knowledge, the late queene of famous memory never punished any Papist for religion.' _Works of King James_, London, 1616, folio, p. 252. And Charles I. says: 'I am informed, neither Queen Elizabeth nor my father did ever avow that any priest in their times was executed merely for religion.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 713.

[548] This was the defence set up in 1583, in a work called _The Execution of Justice in England_, and ascribed to Burleigh. See _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. pp. 146, 147; and _Somers Tracts_, vol. i. pp. 189-208: 'a number of persons whom they term as martyrs,' p. 195; and at p. 202, the writer attacks those who have 'entitled certain that have suffered for treason to be martyrs for religion.' In the same way, the opponents of Catholic Emancipation in our time, found themselves compelled to abandon the old theological ground, and to defend the persecution of the Catholics rather by political arguments than by religious ones. Lord Eldon, who was by far the most influential leader of the intolerant party, said, in a speech in the House of Lords, in 1810, that 'the enactments against the Catholics were meant to guard, not against the abstract opinions of their religion, but against the political dangers of a faith which acknowledged a foreign supremacy.' _Twiss's Life of Eldon_, vol. i. p. 435; see also pp. 483, 501, 577-580. Compare _Alison's Hist._ vol. vi. pp. 379 seq., a summary of the debate in 1805.

[549] Mr. Sewell seems to have this change in view in his _Christian Politics_, 8vo, 1844, p. 277. Compare _Coleridge's note_ in _Southey's Life of Wesley_, vol. i. p. 270. An able writer says of the persecutions which, in the seventeenth century, the Church of England directed against her opponents: 'This is the stale pretence of the clergy in all countries, after they have solicited the government to make penal laws against those they call heretics or schismaticks, and prompted the magistrates to a vigorous execution, then they lay all the odium on the civil power for whom they have no excuse to allege, but that such men suffered, not for religion, but for disobedience to the laws.' _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 534. See also _Butler's Mem. of the Catholics_, vol. i. p. 389, and vol. ii. pp. 44-46.

A remarkable evidence of the change that was then taking place, is found in the two most important theological works which appeared in England during the reign of Elizabeth. _Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity_ was published at the end of the sixteenth century,[550] and is still considered one of the greatest bulwarks of our national church. If we compare this work with _Jewel's Apology for the Church of England_, which was written thirty years before it,[551] we shall at once be struck by the different methods these eminent writers employed. Both Hooker and Jewel were men of learning and genius. Both of them were familiar with the Bible, the Fathers, and the Councils. Both of them wrote with the avowed object of defending the Church of England; and both of them were well acquainted with the ordinary weapons of theological controversy. But here the resemblance stops. The men were very similar; their works are entirely different. During the thirty years which had elapsed, the English intellect had made immense progress; and the arguments which in the time of Jewel were found perfectly satisfactory, would not have been listened to in the time of Hooker. The work of Jewel is full of quotations from the Fathers and the Councils, whose mere assertions, when they are uncontradicted by Scripture, he seems to regard as positive proofs. Hooker, though he shows much respect to the Councils, lays little stress upon the Fathers, and evidently considered that his readers would not pay much attention to their unsupported opinions. Jewel inculcates the importance of faith; Hooker insists upon the exercise of reason.[552] The first employs all his talents in collecting the decisions of antiquity, and in deciding upon the meaning which they may be supposed to bear. The other quotes the ancients, not so much from respect for their authority, as with the view of illustrating his own arguments. Thus, for instance, both Hooker and Jewel assert the undoubted right of the sovereign to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs. Jewel, however, fancied that he had proved the right, when he had pointed out that it was exercised by Moses, by Joshua, by David, and by Solomon.[553] On the other hand, Hooker lays down that this right exists, not because it is ancient, but because it is advisable; and because it is unjust to suppose that men who are not ecclesiastics will consent to be bound by laws which ecclesiastics alone have framed.[554] In the same opposite spirit do these great writers conduct their defence of their own church. Jewel, like all the authors of his time, had exercised his memory more than his reason; and he thinks to settle the whole dispute by crowding together texts from the Bible, with the opinions of the commentators upon them.[555] But Hooker, who lived in the age of Shakespeare and Bacon, found himself constrained to take views of a far more comprehensive character. His defence rests neither upon tradition nor upon commentators, nor ever upon revelation; but he is content that the pretensions of the hostile parties shall be decided by their applicability to the great exigencies of society, and by the ease with which they adapt themselves to the general purposes of ordinary life.[556]

[550] The first four books, which are in every point of view the most important, were published in 1594. _Walton's Life of Hooker_, in _Wordsworth's Ecclesiast. Biog._ vol. iii. p. 509. The sixth book is said not to be authentic; and doubts have been thrown upon the seventh and eighth books; but Mr. Hallam thinks that they are certainly genuine. _Literature of Europe_, vol. ii. pp. 24, 25.

[551] _Jewel's Apology_ was written in 1561 or 1562. See _Wordsworth's Eccles. Biog._ vol. iii. p. 313. This work, the Bible, and _Fox's Martyrs_, were ordered, in the reign of Elizabeth, 'to be fixed in all parish churches, to be read by the people.' _Aubrey's Letters_, vol. ii. p. 42. The order, in regard to Jewel's _Defence_, was repeated by James I. and Charles I. _Butler's Mem. of the Catholics_, vol. iv. p. 413.

[552] 'Wherefore the natural measure whereby to judge our doings is, the sentence of Reason determining and setting down what is good to be done.' _Eccl. Polity_, book i. sec. viii. in _Hooker's Works_, vol. i. p. 99. He requires of his opponents, 'not to exact at our hands for every action the knowledge of some place of Scripture out of which we stand bound to deduce it, as by divers testimonies they seek to enforce; but rather, as the truth is, so to acknowledge, that _it sufficeth if such actions be framed according to the law of reason_.' Book ii. sec. i. _Works_, vol. i. p. 151. 'For men to be tied and led by authority, as it were with a kind of captivity of judgment, and, though there be reason to the contrary, not to listen unto it, but to follow, like beasts, the first in the herd, they know not nor care not whither: this were brutish. Again, that authority of men should prevail with men, either against or above Reason, is no part of our belief. Companies of learned men, be they never so great and reverend, are to yield unto Reason.' Book ii. sec. vii. vol. i. pp. 182, 183. In book v. sec. viii. vol. ii. p. 23, he says, that even 'the voice of the church' is to be held inferior to reason. See also a long passage in book vii. sec. xi. vol. iii. p. 152; and on the application of reason to the general theory of religion, see vol. i. pp. 220-223, book iii. sec. viii. Again, at p. 226: 'Theology, what is it, but the science of things divine? What science can be attained unto, without the help of natural discourse and Reason?' And he indignantly asks those who insist on the supremacy of faith, 'May we cause our faith without Reason to appear reasonable in the eyes of men?' vol. i. p. 230.

[553] After referring to Isaiah, he adds: 'Præter, inquam, hæc omnia, ex historiis et optimorum temporum exemplis videmus pios principes procurationem ecclesiarum ab officio suo nunquam putasse alienam.

'Moses civilis magistratus, ac ductor populi, omnem religionis, et sacrorum rationem, et accepit a Deo, et populo tradidit, et Aaronem episcopum de aureo vitulo, et de violata religione, vehementer et graviter castigavit. Josue, etsi non aliud erat, quàm magistratus civilis, tamen cùm primùm inauguraretur et præficeretur populo, accepit mandata nominatim de religione, deque colendo Deo.

'David rex, cùm omnis jam religio, ab impio rege Saule prorsus esset dissipata, reduxit arcam Dei, hoc est, religionem restituit: nec tantùm adfuit ut admonitor aut hortator operis, sed etiam psalmos et hymnos dedit, et classes disposuit, et pompam instituit, et quodammodo præfuit sacerdotibus.

'Salomon rex ædificavit templum Domino, quod ejus pater David animo tantùm destinaverat: et postremò orationem egregiam habuit ad populum de religione, et cultu Dei; et Abiatharum episcopum postea summovit, et in ejus locum Sadocum surrogavit.' _Apolog. Eccles. Anglic._ pp. 161, 162.

[554] He says that, although the clergy may be supposed more competent than laymen to regulate ecclesiastical matters, this will practically avail them nothing: 'It were unnatural not to think the pastors and bishops of our souls a great deal more fit than men of secular trades and callings; howbeit, when all which the wisdom of all sorts can do is done, for the devising of laws in the church, it is the general consent of all that giveth them the form and vigour of laws; without which they could be no more unto us than the counsels of physicians to the sick.' _Ecclesiastical Polity_, book viii. sec. vi. vol. iii. p. 303. He adds, p. 326: 'Till it be proved that some special law of Christ hath for ever annexed unto the clergy alone the power to make ecclesiastical laws, we are to hold it a thing most _consonant with equity and reason_, that no ecclesiastical laws be made in a Christian commonwealth, without consent as well of the laity as of the clergy, but least of all without consent of the highest power.'

[555] 'Quòd si docemus sacrosanctum Dei evangelium, et veteres episcopos, atque ecclesiam primitivam nobiscum facere.' If this be so, then, indeed, 'speramus, neminem illorum' (his opponents) 'ita negligentem fore salutis suæ, quin ut velit aliquando cogitationem suscipere, ad utros potiùs se adjungat.' _Apolog. Eccles. Anglic._ p. 17. At p. 53, he indignantly asks if any one will dare to impeach the Fathers: 'Ergo Origenes, Ambrosius, Augustinus, Chrysostomus, Gelasius, Theodoretus erant desertores fidei catholicæ? Ergo tot veterum episcoporum et doctorum virorum tanta consensio nihil aliud erat quàm conspiratio hæreticorum? Aut quod tum laudabatur in illis, id nunc damnatur in nobis? Quodque in illis erat catholicum, id nunc mutatis tantùm hominum voluntatibus, repentè factum est schismaticum? Aut quod olim erat verum, nunc statim, quia istis non placet, erit falsum?' His work is full of this sort of eloquent, but, as it appears to our age, pointless declamation.

[556] This large view underlies the whole of the _Ecclesiastical Polity_. I can only afford room for a few extracts, which will be illustrations rather than proofs: the proof will be obvious to every competent reader of the work itself. 'True it is, the ancienter the better ceremonies of religion are; howbeit not absolutely true and without exception; _but true only so far forth as those different ages do agree_ in the state of those things for which, at the first, those rites, orders, and ceremonies were instituted.' vol. i. p. 36. 'We count those things perfect which want nothing requisite for the end whereto they were instituted.' vol. i. p. 191. 'Because when a thing doth cease to be available unto the end which gave it being, the continuance of it must then of necessity appear superfluous.' And even of the laws of God, he boldly adds: 'Notwithstanding the authority of their Maker, the mutability of that end for which they are made doth also make them changeable.' vol. i. p. 236. 'And therefore laws, though both ordained of God himself, and the end for which they were ordained continuing, may notwithstanding cease, if by alteration of persons or times they be found unsufficient to attain unto that end.' vol. i. p. 238. At p. 240: 'I therefore conclude, that neither God's being Author of laws for government of his church, nor his committing them unto Scripture, is any reason sufficient wherefore all churches should for ever be bound to keep them without change.' See, too, vol. iii. p. 169, on 'the exigence of necessity.' Compare pp. 182, 183, and vol. i. p. 323, vol. ii. pp. 273, 424. Not a vestige of such arguments can be found in Jewel; who, on the contrary, says (_Apologia_, p. 114), 'Certè in religionem Dei nihil gravius dici potest, quàm si ea accusetur novitatis. Ut enim in Deo ipso, ita in ejus cultu nihil oportet esse novum.'

It requires but little penetration to see the immense importance of the change which these two great works represent. As long as an opinion in theology was defended by the old dogmatic method, it was impossible to assail it without incurring the imputation of heresy. But when it was chiefly defended by human reasoning, its support was seriously weakened. For by this means the element of uncertainty was let in. It might be alleged, that the arguments of one sect are as good as those of another; and that we cannot be sure of the truth of our principles, until we have heard what is to be said on the opposite side. According to the old theological theory, it was easy to justify the most barbarous persecution. If a man knew that the only true religion was the one which he professed, and if he also knew that those who died in a contrary opinion were doomed to everlasting perdition--if he knew these things beyond the remotest possibility of a doubt, he might fairly argue, that it is merciful to punish the body in order to save the soul, and secure to immortal beings their future salvation, even though he employed so sharp a remedy as the halter or the stake.[557] But if this same man is taught to think that questions of religion are to be settled by reason as well as by faith, he can scarcely avoid the reflection, that the reason even of the strongest minds is not infallible, since it has led the ablest men to the most opposite conclusions. When this idea is once diffused among a people, it cannot fail to influence their conduct. No one of common sense and common honesty will dare to levy upon another, on account of his religion, the extreme penalty of the law, when he knows it possible that his own opinions may be wrong, and that those of the man he has punished may be right. From the moment when questions of religion begin to evade the jurisdiction of faith, and submit to the jurisdiction of reason, persecution becomes a crime of the deepest dye. Thus it was in England in the seventeenth century. As theology became more reasonable, it became less confident, and therefore more merciful. Seventeen years after the publication of the great work of Hooker, two men were publicly burned by the English bishops, for holding heretical opinions.[558] But this was the last gasp of expiring bigotry; and since that memorable day, the soil of England has never been stained by the blood of a man who has suffered for his religious creed.[559]

[557] Archbishop Whately has made some very good remarks on this. See his _Errors of Romanism traced to their Origin in Human Nature_, pp. 237, 238.

[558] Their names were Legat and Wightman, and they suffered in 1611: see the contemporary account in _Somers Tracts_, vol. ii. pp. 400-408. Compare _Blackstone's Comment._ vol. iv. p. 49; _Harris's Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. i. pp. 143, 144; and note in _Burton's Diary_, vol. i. p. 118. Of these martyrs to their opinions, Mr. Hallam says: 'The first was burned by King, bishop of London; the second by Neyle, of Litchfield.' _Const. Hist._ vol. i. pp. 611, 612.

[559] It should be mentioned, to the honour of the Court of Chancery, that late in the sixteenth, and early in the seventeenth century, its powers were exerted against the execution of those cruel laws, by which the Church of England was allowed to persecute men who differed from its own views. See _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. ii. pp. 135, 176, 231.

We have thus seen the rise of that scepticism which in physics must always be the beginning of science, and in religion must always be the beginning of toleration. There is, indeed, no doubt that in both cases individual thinkers may, by a great effort of original genius, emancipate themselves from the operation of this law. But in the progress of nations no such emancipation is possible. As long as men refer the movements of the comets to the immediate finger of God, and as long as they believe that an eclipse is one of the modes by which the Deity expresses his anger, they will never be guilty of the blasphemous presumption of attempting to predict such supernatural appearances. Before they could dare to investigate the causes of these mysterious phenomena, it is necessary that they should believe, or at all events that they should suspect, that the phenomena themselves were capable of being explained by the human mind. In the same way, until men are content in some degree to bring their religion before the bar of their own reason, they never can understand how it is that there should be a diversity of creeds, or how any one can differ from themselves without being guilty of the most enormous and unpardonable crime.[560]

[560] 'To tax any one, therefore, with want of reverence, because he pays no respect to what we venerate, is either irrelevant, or is a mere confusion. The fact, so far as it is true, is no reproach, but an honour; because to reverence all persons and all things is absolutely wrong: reverence shown to that which does not deserve it, is no virtue; no, nor even an amiable weakness, but a plain folly and sin. But if it be meant that he is wanting in proper reverence, not respecting what is really to be respected, that is assuming the whole question at issue, because what we call divine, he calls an idol; and as, supposing that we are in the right, we are bound to fall down and worship, so, supposing him to be in the right, he is no less bound to pull it to the ground and destroy it.' _Arnold's Lectures on Modern History_, pp. 210, 211. Considering the ability of Dr. Arnold, considering his great influence, and considering his profession, his antecedents, and the character of the university in which he was speaking, it must be allowed that this is a remarkable passage, and one well worthy the notice of those who wish to study the tendencies of the English mind during the present generation.

If we now continue to trace the progress of opinions in England, we shall see the full force of these remarks. A general spirit of inquiry, of doubt, and even of insubordination, began to occupy the minds of men. In physics, it enabled them, almost at a blow, to throw off the shackles of antiquity, and give birth to sciences founded not on notions of old, but on individual observations and individual experiments.[561] In politics, it stimulated them to rise against the government, and eventually bring their king to the scaffold. In religion, it vented itself in a thousand sects, each of which proclaimed, and often exaggerated, the efficiency of private judgment.[562] The details of this vast movement form one of the most interesting parts of the history of England: but without anticipating what I must hereafter relate, I will at present mention only one instance, which, from the circumstances attending it, is very characteristic of the age. The celebrated work by Chillingworth on the _Religion of Protestants_, is generally admitted to be the best defence which the Reformers have been able to make against the Church of Rome.[563] It was published in 1637,[564] and the position of the author would induce us to look for the fullest display of bigotry that was consistent with the spirit of his time. Chillingworth had recently abandoned the creed which he now came forward to attack; and he, therefore, might be expected to have that natural inclination to dogmatize with which apostasy is usually accompanied. Besides this, he was the godson and the intimate friend of Laud,[565] whose memory is still loathed, as the meanest, the most cruel, and the most narrowminded man who ever sat on the episcopal bench.[566] He was, moreover, a fellow of Oxford, and was a constant resident at that ancient university, which has always been esteemed as the refuge of superstition, and which has preserved to our own day its unenviable fame.[567] If now we turn to the work that was written under these auspices, we can scarcely believe that it was produced in the same generation, and in the same country, where, only twenty-six years before, two men had been publicly burned because they advocated opinions different to those of the established church. It is, indeed, a most remarkable proof of the prodigious energy of that great movement which was now going on, that its pressure should be felt under circumstances the most hostile to it which can possibly be conceived; and that a friend of Laud, and a fellow of Oxford, should, in a grave theological treatise, lay down principles utterly subversive of that theological spirit which for many centuries had enslaved the whole of Europe.

[561] On the connexion between the rise of the Baconian philosophy and the change in the spirit of theologians, compare _Comte_, _Philosophie Positive_, vol. v. p. 701, with _Whately on Dangers to Christian Faith_, pp. 148, 149. It favoured, as Tennemann (_Gesch. der Philos._ vol. x. p. 14) says, the 'Belebung der selbstthätigen Kraft des menschlichen Geistes;' and hence the attack on the inductive philosophy in _Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine_, pp. 179-183. But Mr. Newman does not seem to be aware how irrevocably we are now pledged to the movement which he seeks to reverse.

[562] The rapid increase of heresy in the middle of the seventeenth century is very remarkable, and it greatly aided civilization in England by encouraging habits of independent thought. In Feb. 1646-7, Boyle writes from London, 'There are few days pass here, that may not justly be accused of the brewing or broaching of some new opinion. Nay, some are so studiously changling in that particular, they esteem an opinion as a diurnal, after a day or two scarce worth the keeping. If any man have lost his religion, let him repair to London, and I'll warrant him he shall find it: I had almost said too, and if any man has a religion, let him but come hither now, and he shall go near to lose it.' _Birch's Life of Boyle_, in _Boyle's Works_, vol. i. pp. 20, 21. See also _Bates's Account of the late Troubles_, edit. 1685, part ii. p. 219, on 'that unbridled licentiousness of hereticks which grew greater and greater daily.' Compare to the same effect _Carlyle's Cromwell_, vol. i. p. 289; _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 608; and _Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of England_, vol. ii. p. 203: 'sectaries began to swarm.'

[563] Not to quote the opinions of inferior men respecting Chillingworth, it is enough to mention, that Lord Mansfield said he was 'a perfect model of argumentation.' _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol. i. p. 126. Compare a letter from Warburton, in _Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. iv. p. 849.

[564] _Des Maizeaux_, _Life of Chillingworth_, p. 141.

[565] _Aubrey's Letters and Lives_, vol. ii. p. 285; _Des Maizeaux_, _Life of Chillingworth_, pp. 2, 9. The correspondence between Laud and Chillingworth is supposed to be lost. _Des Maizeaux_, p. 12. Carwithen (_Hist. of the Church of England_, vol. ii. p. 214) says, 'Laud was the godfather of Chillingworth.'

[566] The character of Laud is now well understood and generally known. His odious cruelties made him so hated by his contemporaries, that after his condemnation, many persons shut up their shops, and refused to open them till he was executed. This is mentioned by Walton, an eye-witness. See _Walton's Life of Sanderson_, in _Wordsworth's Eccles. Biog._ vol. iv. p. 429.

[567] A modern writer suggests, with exquisite simplicity, that Chillingworth derived his liberal principles _from_ Oxford: 'the very same college which nursed the high intellect and tolerant principles of Chillingworth.' _Bowles's Life of Bishop Ken_, vol. i. p. xxi.

In this great work, all authority in matters of religion is openly set at defiance. Hooker, indeed, had appealed from the jurisdiction of the Fathers to the jurisdiction of reason; he had, however, been careful to add, that the reason of individuals ought to bow before that of the church, as we find it expressed in great Councils, and in the general voice of ecclesiastical tradition.[568] But Chillingworth would hear of none of these things. He would admit of no reservations which tended to limit the sacred right of private judgment. He not only went far beyond Hooker in neglecting the Fathers,[569] but he even ventured to despise the Councils. Although the sole object of his work was to decide on the conflicting claims of the two greatest sects into which the Christian Church has broken, he never quotes as authorities the Councils of that very church respecting which the disputes were agitated.[570] His strong and subtle intellect, penetrating the depths of the subject, despised that sort of controversy which had long busied the minds of men. In discussing the points upon which the Catholics and Protestants were at issue, he does not inquire whether the doctrines in question met the approval of the early church, but he asks if they are in accordance with human reason; and he does not hesitate to say that, however true they may be, no man is bound to believe them if he finds that they are repugnant to the dictates of his own understanding. Nor will he consent that faith should supply the absence of authority. Even this favourite principle of theologians is by Chillingworth made to yield to the supremacy of the human reason.[571] Reason, he says, gives us knowledge; while faith only gives us belief, which is a part of knowledge, and is, therefore, inferior to it. It is by reason, and not by faith, that we must discriminate in religious matters; and it is by reason alone that we can distinguish truth from falsehood. Finally, he solemnly reminds his readers, that in religious matters no one ought to be expected to draw strong conclusions from imperfect premises, or to credit improbable statements upon scanty evidence; still less, he says, was it ever intended that men should so prostitute their reason, as to believe with infallible faith that which they are unable to prove with infallible arguments.[572]

[568] Hooker's undue respect for the Councils of the Church is noticed by Mr. Hallam, _Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 213. Compare the hesitating remarks in _Coleridge's Literary Remains_, vol. iii. pp. 35, 36.

[569] Reading the Fathers he contemptuously calls travelling on a 'north-west discovery.' _Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants_, p. 366. Even to Augustine, who was probably the ablest of them, Chillingworth pays no deference. See what he says at pp. 196, 333, 376; and as to the authority of the Fathers in general, see pp. 252, 346. Chillingworth observed, happily enough, that churchmen 'account them fathers when they are for them, and children when they are against them.' _Calamy's Life_, vol. i. p. 253.

[570] As to the supposed authority of Councils, see _Religion of Protestants_, pp. 132, 463. It affords curious evidence of the slow progress of theologians to observe the different spirit in which some of our clergy consider these matters. See, for instance, _Palmer on the Church_, 1839, vol. ii. pp. 150-171. In no other branch of inquiry do we find this obstinate determination to adhere to theories which all thinking men have rejected for the last two centuries.

[571] Indeed, he attempts to fasten the same doctrine upon the Catholics; which, if he could have done, would of course have ended the controversy. He says, rather unfairly, 'Your church you admit, because you think you have reason to do so; so that by you, as well as Protestants, all is finally resolved into your own reason.' _Relig. of Protest._ p. 134.

[572] 'God desires only that we believe the conclusion, as much as the premises deserve; that the strength of our faith be equal or proportionable to the credibility of the motives to it.' _Relig. of Protest._ p. 66. 'For my part, I am certain that God hath given us our reason to discern between truth and falsehood; and he that makes not this use of it, but believes things he knows not why, I say it is by chance that he believes the truth, and not by choice; and I cannot but fear that God will not accept of this sacrifice of fools.' p. 133. 'God's spirit, if he please, may work more,--a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence; but neither God doth, nor man may, require of us, as our duty, to give a greater assent to the conclusion than the premises deserve; to build an infallible faith upon motives that are only highly credible and not infallible; as it were a great and heavy building upon a foundation that hath not strength proportionate.' p. 149. 'For faith is not knowledge, no more than three is four, but eminently contained in it; so that he that knows, believes, and something more; but he that believes many times does not know--nay, if he doth barely and merely believe, he doth never know.' p. 412. See also p. 417.

No one of ordinary reflection can fail to perceive the manifest tendency of these opinions. But what is more important to observe is, the process through which, in the march of civilization, the human mind had been obliged to pass before it could reach such elevated views. The Reformation, by destroying the dogma of an infallible church, had of course weakened the reverence which was paid to ecclesiastical antiquity. Still, such was the force of old associations, that our countrymen long continued to respect what they had ceased to venerate. Thus it was, that Jewel, though recognizing the supreme authority of the Bible, had, in cases where it was silent or ambiguous, anxiously appealed to the early church, by whose decision he supposed all difficulties could be easily cleared. He, therefore, only used his reason to ascertain the discrepancies which existed between Scripture and tradition; but when they did not clash, he paid what is now considered a superstitious deference to antiquity. Thirty years after him came Hooker;[573] who made a step in advance, and laying down principles from which Jewel would have shrunk with fear, did much to weaken that which it was reserved for Chillingworth utterly to destroy. Thus it is, that these three great men represent the three distinct epochs of the three successive generations in which they respectively lived. In Jewel, reason is, if I may so say, the superstructure of the system; but authority is the basis upon which the superstructure is built. In Hooker, authority is only the superstructure, and reason is the basis.[574] But in Chillingworth, whose writings were harbingers of the coming storm, authority entirely disappears, and the whole fabric of religion is made to rest upon the way in which the unaided reason of man shall interpret the decrees of an omnipotent God.

[573] On the connexion between the Reformation and the views advocated in the _Ecclesiastical Polity_, compare _Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine_, p. 47, with some able remarks by Locke, in _King's Life of Locke_, vol. ii. pp. 99-101. Locke, who was anything but a friend to the church, was a great admirer of Hooker, and in one place calls him 'the arch-philosopher.' _Essay on Government_, in _Locke's Works_, vol. iv. p. 380.

[574] The opposition between Jewel and Hooker was so marked, that some of the opponents of Hooker quoted against him Jewel's Apology. See _Wordsworth's Eccl. Biog._ vol. iii. p. 513. Dr. Wordsworth calls this 'curious;' but it would be much more curious if it had not happened. Compare the remarks made by the Bishop of Limerick (_Parr's Works_, vol. ii. p. 470, _Notes on the Spital Sermon_), who says, that Hooker 'opened that fountain of reason,' &c.; language which will hardly be considered too strong by those who have compared the _Ecclesiastical Polity_ with the theological works previously produced by the English church.

The immense success of this great work of Chillingworth, must have aided that movement of which it is itself an evidence.[575] It formed a decisive vindication of religious dissent;[576] and thus justified the breaking up of the Anglican church, which the same generation lived to witness. Its fundamental principle was adopted by the most influential writers of the seventeenth century,--such as Hales, Owen, Taylor, Burnet, Tillotson, Locke, and even the cautious and time-serving Temple; all of whom insisted upon the authority of private judgment, as forming a tribunal from which no one had the power of appeal. The inference to be drawn from this seems obvious.[577] If the ultimate test of truth is individual judgment, and if no one can affirm that the judgments of men, which are often contradictory, can ever be infallible, it follows of necessity that there is no decisive criterion of religious truth. This is a melancholy, and, as I firmly believe, a most inaccurate conclusion; but it is one which every nation must entertain, before it can achieve that great work of toleration, which, even in our own country, and in our own time, is not yet consummated. It is necessary that men should learn to doubt, before they begin to tolerate; and that they should recognize the fallibility of their own opinions, before they respect the opinions of their opponents.[578] This great process is far from being yet completed in any country; and the European mind, barely emerged from its early credulity, and from an overweening confidence in its own belief, is still in a middle, and, so to say, a probationary stage. When that stage shall be finally passed, when we shall have learned to estimate men solely by their character and their acts, and not at all by their theological dogmas, we shall then be able to form our religious opinions by that purely transcendental process, of which in every age glimpses have been granted to a few gifted minds. That this is the direction in which things are now hastening, must be clear to every one who has studied the progress of modern civilization. Within the short space of three centuries, the old theological spirit has been compelled, not only to descend from its long-established supremacy, but to abandon those strongholds to which, in the face of advancing knowledge, it has vainly attempted to secure a retreat. All its most cherished pretensions it has been forced gradually to relinquish.[579] And although in England a temporary prominence has recently been given to certain religious controversies, still the circumstances attending them show the alteration in the character of the age. Disputes which, a century ago, would have set the whole kingdom in a flame, are now regarded with indifference by the vast majority of educated men. The complications of modern society, and the immense variety of interests into which it is divided, have done much to distract the intellect, and to prevent it from dwelling upon subjects which a less-occupied people would deem of paramount importance. Besides this, the accumulations of science are far superior to those of any former age, and offer suggestions of such surpassing interest, that nearly all our greatest thinkers devote to them the whole of their time, and refuse to busy themselves with matters of mere speculative belief. The consequence is, that what used to be considered the most important of all questions, is now abandoned to inferior men, who mimic the zeal, without possessing the influence of those really great divines whose works are among the glories of our early literature. These turbulent polemics have, indeed, distracted the church by their clamour, but they have not made the slightest impression upon the great body of English intellect; and an overwhelming majority of the nation is notoriously opposed to that monastic and ascetic religion which it is now vainly attempted to reconstruct. The truth is, that the time for these things has gone by. Theological interests have long ceased to be supreme; and the affairs of nations are no longer regulated according to ecclesiastical views.[580] In England, where the march has been more rapid than elsewhere, this change is very observable. In every other department we have had a series of great and powerful thinkers, who have done honour to their country, and have won the admiration of mankind. But for more than a century, we have not produced a single original work in the whole field of controversial theology. For more than a century, the apathy on this subject has been so marked, that there has been made no addition of value to that immense mass of divinity which, among thinking men, is in every successive generation losing something of its former interest.[581]

[575] Des Maizeaux (_Life of Chillingworth_, pp. 220, 221) says: 'His book was received with a general applause; and, what perhaps never happened to any other controversial work of that bulk, two editions of it were published within less than five months.... The quick sale of a book, and especially of a book of controversy, in folio, is a good proof that the author hit the taste of his time.' See also _Biographia Britannica_, edit. Kippis, vol. iii. pp. 511, 512.

[576] Or, as Calamy cautiously puts it, Chillingworth's work 'appeared to me to go a great way towards the justifying of moderate conformity.' _Calamy's Life_, vol. i. p. 234. Compare _Palmer on the Church_, vol. i. pp. 267, 268; and what is probably an allusion to Chillingworth in _Doddridge's Correspond. and Diary_, vol. ii. p. 81. See also the opinion of Hobbes, in _Aubrey's Letters and Lives_, vol. ii. pp. 288, 629.

[577] A short but able view of the aspect which the English mind now began to assume, will be found in _Stäudlin_, _Geschichte der theologischen Wissenschaften_, vol. ii. pp. 95 seq.

[578] In _Whately's Dangers to Christian Faith_, pp. 188-198, there is a perspicuous statement of the arguments now commonly received against coercing men for their religious opinions. But the most powerful of these arguments are based entirely upon expediency, which would have insured their rejection in an age of strong religious convictions. Some, and only some, of the theological difficulties respecting toleration, are noticed in _Coleridge's Lit. Remains_, vol. i. pp. 312-315; and in another work (_The Friend_, vol. i. p. 73), he mentions, what is the real fact 'that same indifference which makes toleration so easy a virtue with us.' See also _Archdeacon Hare's Guesses at Truth_, 2nd series, 1848, p. 278; and _Nichols's Illustrations of Lit. Hist._ vol. v. p. 817: 'a spirit of mutual toleration and forbearance has appeared (at least one good consequence of religious indifference).'

[579] It would be idle to offer proofs of so notorious a fact; but the reader will be interested by some striking remarks in _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. i. pp. 228, 229.

[580] A writer intimately acquainted with the social condition of the great European countries, says: 'Ecclesiastical power is almost extinct as an active element in the political or social affairs of nations or of individuals, in the cabinet or in the family circle; and a new element, literary power, is taking its place in the government of the world.' _Laing's Denmark_, 1852, p. 82. On this natural tendency in regard to legislation, see _Meyer_, _Esprit des Institut. Judiciaires_, vol. i. p. 267 note; and a good summary in _Stäudlin_, _Gesch. der theolog. Wissenschaften_, vol. ii. pp. 304, 305. It is not surprising to find that many of the clergy complain of a movement so subversive of their own power. Compare _Ward's Ideal of a Christian Church_, pp. 40, 108-111, 388; _Sewell's Christian Politics_, pp. 276, 277, 279; _Palmer's Treatise on the Church_, vol. ii. p. 361. It is thus that everything is tending to confirm the remarkable prediction of Sir James Mackintosh, that 'church-power (unless some revolution, auspicious to priestcraft, should replunge Europe in ignorance) will certainly not survive the nineteenth century.' _Mem. of Mackintosh_, vol. i. p. 67.

[581] 'The "divines" in England at the present day, her bishops, professors, and prebendaries, are not theologians. They are logicians, chemists, skilled in the mathematics, historians, poor commentators upon Greek poets.' _Theodore Parker's Critical and Miscellaneous Writings_, 1848, p. 302. At p. 33, the same high authority says: 'But, within the present century, what has been written in the English tongue, in any department of theological scholarship, which is of value and makes a mark on the age? The _Bridgewater Treatises_, and the new edition of _Paley_,--we blush to confess it,--are the best things.' Sir William Hamilton (_Discussions on Philosophy_, 1852, p. 699) notices the decline of 'British theology,' though he appears ignorant of the cause of it. The Rev. Mr. Ward (_Ideal of a Christian Church_, p. 405) remarks, that 'we cannot wonder, however keenly we may mourn, at the decline and fall of dogmatic theology.' See also _Lord Jeffrey's Essays_, vol. iv. p. 337: 'Warburton, we think, was the last of our great divines.... The days of the Cudworths and Barrows, the Hookers and Taylors, are long gone by.' Dr. Parr was the only English theologian since Warburton who possessed sufficient learning to retrieve this position; but he always refused to do so, being, unconsciously to himself, held back by the spirit of his age. Thus, we find him writing to Archbishop Magee, in 1823: 'As to myself, I long ago determined not to take any active part in polemical theology.' _Parr's Works_, vol. vii. p. 11.

In the same way, since the early part of the eighteenth century, hardly any one has carefully read the Fathers, except for mere historical and secular purposes. The first step was taken about the middle of the seventeenth century, when the custom of quoting them in sermons began to be abandoned. _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. i. pp. 329, 330; _Orme's Life of Owen_, p. 184. After this they rapidly fell into contempt; and the Rev. Mr. Dowling (_Study of Ecclesiast. History_, p. 195) asserts, that 'Waterland, who died in 1740, was the last of our great patristical scholars.' To this I may add, that nine years subsequent to the death of Waterland, the obvious decay of professional learning struck Warburton, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester, so much, that he wrote to Jortin, somewhat roughly, 'anything makes a divine among our parsons.' See his _Letter_, written in 1749, in _Nichols's Illustrations of Lit. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 173; and for other evidence of the neglect by the clergy of their ancient studies, see _Jones's Memoirs of Horne, Bishop of Norwich_, pp. 68, 184; and the complaint of Dr. Knowler, in 1766, in _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. ii. p. 130. Since then, attempts have been made at Oxford to remedy this tendency; but such attempts, being opposed by the general march of affairs, have been, and must be, futile. Indeed, so manifest is the inferiority of these recent efforts, that one of the most active cultivators in that field frankly admits, that, in point of knowledge, his own party has effected nothing; and he even asserts, with great bitterness, that 'it is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only, English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the infidel Gibbon.' _Newman on the Develop. of Christ. Doct._ p. 5.

These are only some of the innumerable signs, which must be discerned by every man who is not blinded by the prejudices of an imperfect education. An immense majority of the clergy,--some from ambitious feelings, but the greater part, I believe, from conscientious motives,--are striving to check the progress of that scepticism which is now gathering in upon us from every quarter.[582] It is time that these well-intentioned, though mistaken, men should see the delusion under which they labour. That by which they are so much alarmed, is the intermediate step which leads from superstition to toleration. The higher order of minds have passed through this stage, and are approaching what is probably the ultimate form of the religious history of the human race. But the people at large, and even some of those who are commonly called educated men, are only now entering that earlier epoch in which scepticism[583] is the leading feature of the mind. So far, therefore, from our apprehensions being excited by this rapidly-increasing spirit, we ought rather to do everything in our power to encourage that which, though painful to some, is salutary to all; because by it alone can religious bigotry be effectually destroyed. Nor ought we to be surprised that, before this can be done, a certain degree of suffering must first intervene.[584] If one age believes too much, it is but a natural reaction that another age should believe too little. Such are the imperfections of our nature, that we are compelled, by the very laws of its progress, to pass through those crises of scepticism and of mental distress, which to a vulgar eye are states of national decline and national shame; but which are only as the fire by which the gold must be purged before it can leave its dross in the pot of the refiner. To apply the imagery of the great allegorist, it is necessary that the poor pilgrim, laden with the weight of accumulated superstitions, should struggle through the Slough of Despond and the Valley of Death, before he can reach that glorious city, glittering with gold and with jewels, of which the first sight is sufficient recompense for his toils and his fears.

[582] As some writers, moved by their wishes rather than by their knowledge, seek to deny this, it may be well to observe, that the increase of scepticism since the latter part of the eighteenth century is attested by an immense mass of evidence, as will appear to whoever will compare the following authorities: _Whately's Dangers to Christian Faith_, p. 87; _Kay's Social Condition of the People_, vol. ii. p. 506; _Tocqueville_, _de la Démocratie_, vol. iii. p. 72; _J. H. Newman on Development_, pp. 28, 29; _F. W. Newman's Natural History of the Soul_, p. 197; _Parr's Works_, vol. ii. p. 5, vol. iii. pp. 688, 689; _Felkin's Moral Statistics_, in _Journal of Statist. Soc._ vol. i. p. 541; _Watson's Observations on the Life of Wesley_, pp. 155, 194; _Matter_, _Hist. du Gnosticisme_, vol. ii. p. 485; _Ward's Ideal of a Christian Church_, pp. 266, 267, 404; _Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. pp. 129, 142, vol. iii. p. 509; _Priestley's Memoirs_, vol. i. pp. 127, 128, 446, vol. ii. p. 751; _Cappe's Memoirs_, p. 367; _Nichols's Lit. Anec. of Eighteenth Century_, vol. iv. p. 671, vol. viii. p. 473; _Nichols's Illust. of Lit. Hist._ vol. v. p. 640; _Combe's Notes on the United States_, vol. ii. pp. 171, 172, 183.

[583] It has been suggested to me by an able friend, that there is a class of persons who will misunderstand this expression; and that there is another class who, without misunderstanding it, will intentionally misrepresent its meaning. Hence, it may be well to state distinctly what I wish to convey by the word 'scepticism.' By scepticism I merely mean hardness of belief; so that an increased scepticism is an increased perception of the difficulty of proving assertions; or, in other words, it is an increased application, and an increased diffusion, of the rules of reasoning, and of the laws of evidence. This feeling of hesitation and of suspended judgment has, in every department of thought, been the invariable preliminary to all the intellectual revolutions through which the human mind has passed; and without it, there could be no progress, no change, no civilization. In physics, it is the necessary precursor of science; in politics, of liberty; in theology, of toleration. These are the three leading forms of scepticism; it is, therefore, clear, that in religion the sceptic steers a middle course between atheism and orthodoxy, rejecting both extremes, because he sees that both are incapable of proof.

[584] What a learned historian has said of the effect which the method of Socrates produced on a very few Greek minds, is applicable to that state through which a great part of Europe is now passing: 'The Socratic dialectics, clearing away from the mind its mist of fancied knowledge, and laying bare the real ignorance, produced an immediate effect, like the touch of the torpedo. The newly-created consciousness of ignorance was alike unexpected, painful, and humiliating,--a season of doubt and discomfort, yet combined with an internal working and yearning after truth, never before experienced. Such intellectual quickening, which could never commence until the mind had been disabused of its original illusion of false knowledge, was considered by Socrates not merely as the index and precursor, but as the indispensable condition of future progress.' _Grote's Hist. of Greece_, vol. viii. pp. 614, 615, 8vo, 1851. Compare _Kritik der reinen Vernunft_, in _Kant's Werke_, vol. ii. pp. 572, 577. 'So ist der Skeptizismus ein Ruheplatz für die menschliche Vernunft, da sie sich über ihre dogmatische Wanderung besinnen und den Entwurf von der Gegend machen kann, wo sie sich befindet, um ihren Weg fernerhin mit mehrerer Sicherheit wählen zu können, aber nicht ein Wohnplatz zum beständigen Aufenthalte.... So ist das skeptische Verfahren zwar an sich selbst für die Vernunftfragen nicht befriedigend, aber doch vorübend, um ihre Vorsichtigkeit zu erwecken und auf gründliche Mittel zu weisen, die sie in ihren rechtmässigen Besitzen sichern können.'

During the whole of the seventeenth century, this double movement of scepticism and of toleration continued to advance; though its progress was constantly checked by the two successors of Elizabeth, who in every thing reversed the enlightened policy of the great queen. These princes exhausted their strength in struggling against the tendencies of an age they were unable to understand; but, happily, the spirit which they wished to quench had reached a height that mocked their control. At the same time, the march of the English mind was still farther aided by the nature of those disputes which, during half a century, divided the country. In the reign of Elizabeth, the great contest had been between the church and its opponents; between those who were orthodox, and those who were heretical. But in the reigns of James and Charles, theology was for the first time merged in politics. It was no longer a struggle of creeds and dogmas; but it was a struggle between those who favoured the crown, and those who supported the parliament. The minds of men, thus fixed upon matters of real importance, neglected those inferior pursuits that had engrossed the attention of their fathers.[585] When, at length, public affairs had reached their crisis, the hard fate of the king, which eventually advanced the interests of the throne, was most injurious to those of the church. There can, indeed, be no doubt that the circumstances connected with the execution of Charles, inflicted a blow upon the whole system of ecclesiastical authority, from which, in this country, it has never been able to recover. The violent death of the king excited the sympathies of the people; and by thus strengthening the hands of the royalists, hastened the restoration of the monarchy.[586] But the mere name of that great party which had risen to power, was suggestive of the change that, in a religious point of view, was taking place in the national mind. It was, indeed, no light thing, that England should be ruled by men who called themselves Independents; and who, under that title, not only beat back the pretensions of the clergy, but professed an unbounded contempt for all those rites and dogmas which the clergy had, during many centuries, continued to amass.[587] True it is, that the Independents did not always push to their full extent the consequences of their own doctrines.[588] Still, it was a great matter to have those doctrines recognized by the constituted authorities of the state. Besides this, it is important to remark, that the Puritans were more fanatical than superstitious.[589] They were so ignorant of the real principles of government, as to direct penal laws against private vices; and to suppose that immorality could be stemmed by legislation.[590] But, notwithstanding this serious error, they always resisted the aggressions even of their own clergy; and the destruction of the old episcopal hierarchy, though perhaps too hastily effected, must have produced many beneficial results. When the great party by whom these things were accomplished, was at length overthrown, the progress of events still continued to tend in the same direction. After the Restoration, the church, though reinstated in her ancient pomp, had evidently lost her ancient power.[591] At the same time, the new king, from levity, rather than from reason, despised the disputes of theologians, and treated questions of religion with what he considered a philosophic indifference.[592] The courtiers followed his example, and thought they could not err in imitating him, whom they regarded as the Lord's anointed. The results were such as must be familiar even to the most superficial readers of English literature. That grave and measured scepticism, by which the Independents had been characterized, lost all its decorum when it was transplanted into the ungenial atmosphere of a court. The men by whom the king was surrounded, were unequal to the difficulties of suspense; and they attempted to fortify their doubts by the blasphemous expression of a wild and desperate infidelity. With scarcely an exception, all those writers who were most favoured by Charles, exhausted the devices of their ribald spirit, in mocking a religion, of the nature of which they were profoundly ignorant. These impious buffooneries would, by themselves, have left no permanent impression on the age; but they deserve attention, because they were the corrupt and exaggerated representatives of a more general tendency. They were the unwholesome offspring of that spirit of disbelief, and of that daring revolt against authority, which characterized the most eminent Englishmen during the seventeenth century. It was this which caused Locke to be an innovator in his philosophy, and an Unitarian in his creed. It was this which made Newton a Socinian; which forced Milton to be the great enemy of the church, and which not only turned the poet into a rebel, but tainted with Arianism the _Paradise Lost_. In a word, it was the same contempt for tradition, and the same resolution to spurn the yoke, which, being first carried into philosophy by Bacon, was afterwards carried into politics by Cromwell; and which, during that very generation, was enforced in theology by Chillingworth, Owen, and Hales; in metaphysics by Hobbes and Glanvil; and in the theory of government by Harrington, Sydney, and Locke.

[585] Dr. Arnold, whose keen eye noted this change, says (_Lectures on Modern History_, p. 232), 'What strikes us predominantly, is, that what, in Elizabeth's time, was a controversy between divines, was now a great political contest between the crown and the parliament.' The ordinary compilers, such as Sir A. Alison (_Hist. of Europe_, vol. i. p. 51), and others, have entirely misrepresented this movement; an error the more singular, because the eminently political character of the struggle was recognized by several contemporaries. Even Cromwell, notwithstanding the difficult game he had to play, distinctly stated, in 1655, that the origin of the war was not religious. See _Carlyle's Cromwell_, vol. iii. p. 103; and corroborative evidence in _Walker's History of Independency_, part i. p. 132. James I. also saw that the Puritans were more dangerous to the state than to the church: 'do not so far differ from us in points of religion, as in their confused form of policy and parity; being ever discontented with the present government, and impatient to suffer any superiority; which maketh their sects insufferable in any well-governed commonwealth.' _Speech of James I._, in _Parl. Hist._ vol. i. p. 982. See also the observations ascribed to De Foe, in _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. p. 572: 'The king and parliament fell out about matters of civil right; ... the first difference between the king and the English parliament did not respect religion, but civil property.'

[586] See _Clarendon's Hist. of the Rebellion_, p. 716. Sir W. Temple, in his _Memoirs_, observes, that the throne of Charles II. was strengthened by 'what had passed in the last reign.' _Temple's Works_, vol. ii. p. 344. This may be illustrated by the remarks of M. Lamartine on the execution of Louis XVI. _Hist. des Girondins_, vol. v. pp. 86-7: 'Sa mort, au contraire, aliénait de la cause française cette partie immense des populations qui ne juge les événements humains que par le c[oe]ur. La nature humaine est pathétique; la république l'oublia, elle donna à la royauté quelque chose du martyre, à la liberté quelque chose de la vengeance. Elle prépara ainsi une réaction contre la cause républicaine, et mit du côté de la royauté la sensibilité, l'intérêt, les larmes d'une partie des peuples.'

[587] The energy with which the House of Commons, in 1646, repelled the pretensions of 'the Assembly of Divines,' is one of many proofs of the determination of the predominant party not to allow ecclesiastical encroachments. See the remarkable details in _Parl. Hist._ vol. iii. pp. 459-463; see also p. 1305. As a natural consequence, the Independents were the first sect which, when possessed of power, advocated toleration. Compare _Orme's Life of Owen_, pp. 63-75, 102-111; _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 542; _Walker's Hist. of Independency_, part ii. pp. 50, 157, part iii. p. 22; _Clarendon's Hist. of the Rebellion_, pp. 610, 640. Some writers ascribe great merit to Jeremy Taylor for his advocacy of toleration (_Heber's Life of Taylor_, p. xxvii.; and _Parr's Works_, vol. iv. p. 417); but the truth is that when he wrote the famous _Liberty of Prophesying_, his enemies were in power; so that he was pleading for his own interests. When, however, the Church of England again obtained the upper hand, Taylor withdrew the concessions which he had made in the season of adversity. See the indignant remarks of Coleridge (_Lit. Remains_, vol. iii. p. 250), who, though a great admirer of Taylor, expresses himself strongly on this dereliction: see also a recently published _Letter to Percy, Bishop of Dromore_, in _Nichols's Illustrations of Lit. History_, vol. vii. p. 464.

[588] However, Bishop Short (_History of the Church of England_, 8vo, 1847, pp. 452, 458) says, what is undoubtedly true, that the hostility of Cromwell to the church was not theological, but political. The same remark is made by Bishop Kennet. _Note_ in _Burton's Diary_, vol. ii. p. 479. See also _Vaughan's Cromwell_, vol. i. p. xcvii.; and on the generally tolerant spirit of this great man, see _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 14; and the evidence in _Harris's Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. iii. pp. 37-47. But the most distinct recognition of the principle, is in a _Letter from Cromwell to Major-General Crawford_, recently printed in _Carlyle's Cromwell_, vol. i. pp. 201, 202, 8vo, 1846. In it Cromwell writes, 'Sir, the state, in choosing men to serve it, takes no notice of their opinions; if they be willing faithfully to serve it--that satisfies.' See additional proof in _Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of Engl._ vol. ii. pp. 245, 249.

[589] No one can understand the real history of the Puritans, who does not take this into consideration. In the present Introduction, it is impossible to discuss so large a subject; and I must reserve it for the future part of this work, in which the history of England will be specially treated. In the mean time, I may mention, that the distinction between fanaticism and superstition is clearly indicated, but not analyzed, by Archbishop Whately, in his _Errors of Romanism traced to their Origin in Human Nature_, p. 49. This should be compared with _Hume's Philosophical Works_, vol. iii. pp. 81-89, Edinb. 1826, on the difference between enthusiasm and superstition; a difference which is noticed, but, as it appears to me, misunderstood, by Maclaine, in his _Additions to Mosheim's Ecclesiast. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 38.

[590] Compare _Barrington's Observations on the Statutes_, p. 143, with _Burton's Diary of the Parliaments of Cromwell_, vol. i. pp. xcviii. 145, 392, vol. ii. pp. 35, 229. In 1650, a second conviction of fornication was made felony, without benefit of clergy; but, after the Restoration, Charles II. and his friends found this law rather inconvenient; so it was repealed. See _Blackstone's Commentaries_, vol. iv. p. 65.

[591] See _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, edit. 1854, vol. i. p. 51. At p. 129, the same writer says, with sorrow, 'The church recovered much of her temporal possessions, but not her spiritual rule.' The power of the bishops was abridged 'by the destruction of the court of high-commission.' _Short's Hist. of the Church of England_, p. 595. See also, on the diminished influence of the Church-of-England clergy after the Restoration, _Southey's Life of Wesley_, vol. i. pp. 278, 279; and _Watson's Observations on the Life of Wesley_, pp. 129-131.

[592] Buckingham and Halifax, the two men who were perhaps best acquainted with Charles II., both declared that he was a deist. Compare _Lingard's Hist. of Engl._ vol. viii. p. 127, with _Harris's Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. v. p. 55. His subsequent conversion to Catholicism is exactly analogous to the increased devotion of Louis XIV. during the later years of his life. In both cases, superstition was the natural refuge of a worn-out and discontented libertine, who had exhausted all the resources of the lowest and most grovelling pleasures.

The progress which the English intellect was now making towards shaking off ancient superstitions,[593] was still further aided by the extraordinary zeal displayed in the cultivation of the physical sciences. This, like all great social movements, is clearly traceable to the events by which it was preceded. It was partly cause, and partly effect, of the increasing incredulity of the age. The scepticism of the educated classes made them dissatisfied with those long-established opinions, which only rested on unsupported authority; and this gave rise to a desire to ascertain how far such notions might be verified or refuted by the real condition of things. A curious instance of the rapid progress of this spirit may be found in the works of an author who was one of the most eminent among the mere literary men of his time. While the Civil War was barely decided, and three years before the execution of the king, Sir Thomas Browne published his celebrated work, called _Inquiries into Vulgar and Common Errors_.[594] This able and learned production has the merit of anticipating some of those results which more modern inquirers have obtained;[595] but it is chiefly remarkable, as being the first systematic and deliberate onslaught ever made in England upon those superstitious fancies which were then prevalent respecting the external world. And what is still more interesting is, that the circumstances under which it appeared make it evident, that while the learning and genius of the author belonged to himself, the scepticism which he displayed respecting popular belief was forced on him by the pressure of the age.

[593] One of the most curious instances of this may be seen in the destruction of the old notions respecting witchcraft. This important revolution in our opinions was effected, so far as the educated classes are concerned, between the Restoration and the Revolution; that is to say, in 1660, the majority of educated men still believed in witchcraft; while in 1688, the majority disbelieved it. In 1665, the old orthodox view was stated by Chief-Baron Hale, who, on a trial of two women for witchcraft, said to the jury: 'That there are such creatures as witches, I make no doubt at all; for, first, the Scriptures have affirmed so much; secondly, the wisdom of all nations hath provided laws against such persons, which is an argument of their confidence of such a crime.' _Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices_, vol. i. pp. 565, 566. This reasoning was irresistible, and the witches were hung; but the change in public opinion began to affect even the judges, and after this melancholy exhibition of the Chief-Baron, such scenes became gradually rarer; though Lord Campbell is mistaken in supposing (p. 563) that this was 'the last capital conviction in England for the crime of bewitching.' So far from this, three persons were executed at Exeter for witchcraft in 1682. See _Hutchinson's Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_, 1720, pp. 56, 57. Hutchinson says: 'I suppose these are the last three that have been hanged in England.' If, however, one may rely upon a statement made by Dr. Parr, two witches were hung at Northampton in 1705; and in '1712, five other witches suffered the same fate at the same place.' _Parr's Works_, vol. iv. p. 182, 8vo, 1828. This is the more shameful, because, as I shall hereafter prove, from the literature of that time, a disbelief in the existence of witches had become almost universal among educated men; though the old superstition was still defended on the judgment-seat and in the pulpit. As to the opinions of the clergy, compare _Cudworth's Intellect. Syst._ vol. iii. pp. 345, 348; _Vernon Correspond._ vol. ii. pp. 302, 303; _Burt's Letters from the North of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 220, 221; _Wesley's Journals_, pp. 602, 713. Wesley, who had more influence than all the bishops put together, says: 'It is true, likewise, that the English in general, and, indeed, most of the men of learning in Europe, have given up all accounts of witches and apparitions as mere old wives' fables. I am sorry for it.... The giving up witchcraft is, in effect, giving up the Bible.... But I cannot give up, to all the Deists in Great Britain, the existence of witchcraft, till I give up the credit of all history, sacred and profane.'

However, all was in vain. Every year diminished the old belief; and in 1736, a generation before Wesley had recorded these opinions, the laws against witchcraft were repealed, and another vestige of superstition effaced from the English statute-book. See _Barrington on the Statutes_, p. 407; _Note_ in _Burton's Diary_, vol. i. p. 26; _Harris's Life of Hardwicke_, vol. i. p. 307.

To this it may be interesting to add, that in Spain a witch was burned so late as 1781. _Ticknor's Hist. of Spanish Literature_, vol. iii. p. 238.

[594] The first edition was published in 1646. _Works of Sir Thomas Browne_, vol. ii. p. 163.

[595] See the notes in Mr. Wilkin's edition of _Browne's Works_, Lond. 1836, vol. ii. pp. 284, 360, 361.

In or about 1633, when the throne was still occupied by a superstitious prince; when the Church of England was at the height of her apparent power; and when men were incessantly persecuted for their religious opinions--this same Sir Thomas Browne wrote his _Religio Medici_,[596] in which we find all the qualities of his later work, except the scepticism. Indeed, in the _Religio Medici_, there is shown a credulity that must have secured the sympathy of those classes which were then dominant. Of all the prejudices which at that time were deemed an essential part of the popular creed, there was not one which Browne ventured to deny. He announces his belief in the philosopher's stone;[597] in spirits, and tutelary angels;[598] and in palmistry.[599] He not only peremptorily affirms the reality of witches, but he says that those who deny their existence are not merely infidels, but atheists.[600] He carefully tells us that he reckons his nativity, not from his birth, but from his baptism; for before he was baptized, he could not be said to exist.[601] To these touches of wisdom, he moreover adds, that the more improbable any proposition is, the greater his willingness to assent to it; but that when a thing is actually impossible, he is on that very account prepared to believe it.[602]

[596] The precise date is unknown; but Mr. Wilkin supposes that it was written 'between the years 1633 and 1635.' Preface to _Religio Medici_, in _Browne's Works_, vol. ii. p. 4.

[597] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 58.

[598] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 47.

[599] Or, as he calls it, 'chiromancy.' _Religio Medici_, in _Browne's Works_, vol. ii. p. 89.

[600] 'For my part, I have ever believed, and do now know, that there are witches. They that doubt of these, do not only deny them, but spirits; and are obliquely, and upon consequence, a sort, not of infidels, but atheists.' Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 43, 44.

[601] 'From this I do compute or calculate my nativity.' Ibid. vol. ii. p. 64.

[602] _Religio Medici_, sec. ix. in _Browne's Works_, vol. ii. pp. 13, 14: unfortunately too long to extract. This is the 'credo quia impossibile est,' originally one of Tertullian's absurdities, and once quoted in the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyle, as 'the ancient religious maxim.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xi. p. 802. Compare the sarcastic remark on this maxim in the _Essay concerning Human Understanding_, book iv. chap. xviii. _Locke's Works_, vol. ii. p. 271. It was the spirit embodied in this sentence which supplied Celsus with some formidable arguments against the Fathers. _Neander's Hist. of the Church_, vol. i. pp. 227, 228.

Such were the opinions put forth by Sir Thomas Browne in the first of the two great works he presented to the world. But in his _Inquiries into Vulgar Errors_, there is displayed a spirit so entirely different, that if it were not for the most decisive evidence, we could hardly believe it to be written by the same man. The truth, however, is, that during the twelve years which elapsed between the two works, there was completed that vast social and intellectual revolution, of which the overthrow of the church and the execution of the king were but minor incidents. We know from the literature, from the private correspondence, and from the public acts of that time, how impossible it was, even for the strongest minds, to escape the effects of the general intoxication. No wonder, then, that Browne, who certainly was inferior to several of his contemporaries, should have been affected by a movement which they were unable to resist. It would have been strange, indeed, if he alone had remained uninfluenced by that sceptical spirit, which, because it had been arbitrarily repressed, had now broken all bounds, and in the reaction soon swept away those institutions which vainly attempted to stop its course.

It is in this point of view that a comparison of the two works becomes highly interesting, and, indeed, very important. In this, his later production, we hear no more about believing things because they are impossible; but we are told of 'the two great pillars of truth, experience and solid reason.'[603] We are also reminded that one main cause of error is 'adherence unto authority;'[604] that another is, 'neglect of inquiry;'[605] and, strange to say, that a third is 'credulity.'[606] All this was not very consistent with the old theological spirit; and we need not, therefore, be surprised that Browne not only exposes some of the innumerable blunders of the Fathers,[607] but, after speaking of errors in general, curtly adds: 'Many others there are, which we resign unto divinity, and perhaps deserve not controversy.'[608]

[603] _Inquiries into Vulgar and Common Errors_, book iii. chap. xxviii. in _Browne's Works_, vol. ii. p. 534.

[604] Ibid. book i. chap. vii. vol. ii. p. 225.

[605] 'A supinity, or neglect of inquiry.' Ibid. book i. chap. v. vol. ii. p. 211.

[606] 'A third cause of common errors is the credulity of men.' Book i. chap. v. vol. ii. p. 208.

[607] See two amusing instances in vol. ii. pp. 267, 438.

[608] _Vulgar and Common Errors_, book vii. chap. xi., in _Browne's Works_, vol. iii. p. 326.

The difference between these two works is no bad measure of the rapidity of that vast movement which, in the middle of the seventeenth century, was seen in every branch of practical and speculative life. After the death of Bacon, one of the most distinguished Englishmen was certainly Boyle, who, if compared with his contemporaries, may be said to rank immediately below Newton, though, of course, very inferior to him as an original thinker.[609] With the additions he made to our knowledge we are not immediately concerned; but it may be mentioned, that he was the first who instituted exact experiments into the relation between colour and heat;[610] and by this means, not only ascertained some very important facts, but laid a foundation for that union between optics and thermotics, which, though not yet completed, now merely waits for some great philosopher to strike out a generalization large enough to cover both, and thus fuse the two sciences into a single study. It is also to Boyle, more than to any other Englishman, that we owe the science of hydrostatics, in the state in which we now possess it.[611] He is the original discoverer of that beautiful law, so fertile in valuable results, according to which the elasticity of air varies as its density.[612] And, in the opinion of one of the most eminent modern naturalists, it was Boyle who opened up those chemical inquiries, which went on accumulating until, a century later, they supplied the means by which Lavoisier and his contemporaries fixed the real basis of chemistry, and enabled it for the first time to take its proper stand among those sciences that deal with the external world.[613]

[609] Monk (_Life of Bentley_, vol. i. p. 37) says, that Boyle's discoveries 'have placed his name in a rank second only to that of Newton;' and this, I believe, is true, notwithstanding the immense superiority of Newton.

[610] Compare _Powell on Radiant Heat_ (_Brit. Assoc._ vol. i. p. 287), with _Lloyd's Report on Physical Optics_, 1834, p. 338. For the remarks on colours, see _Boyle's Works_, vol. ii. pp. 1-40; and for the account of his experiments, pp. 41-80; and a slight notice in _Brewster's Life of Newton_, vol. i. pp. 155, 156, 236. It is, I think, not generally known, that Power is said to be indebted to Boyle for originating some of his experiments on colours. See a letter from Hooke, in _Boyle's Works_, vol. v. p. 533.

[611] Dr. Whewell (_Bridgewater Treatise_, p. 266) well observes, that Boyle and Pascal are to hydrostatics what Galileo is to mechanics, and Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton to astronomy. See also on Boyle, as the founder of hydrostatics, _Thomson's Hist. of the Royal Society_, pp. 397, 398; and his _Hist. of Chemistry_, vol. i. p. 204.

[612] This was discovered by Boyle about 1650, and confirmed by Mariotte in 1676. See _Whewell's Hist. of the Inductive Sciences_, vol. ii. pp. 557, 588; _Thomson's Hist. of Chemistry_, vol. i. p. 215; _Turner's Chemistry_, vol. i. pp. 41, 200; _Brande's Chemistry_, vol. i. p. 363. This law has been empirically verified by the French Institute, and found to hold good for a pressure even of twenty-seven atmospheres. See _Challis on the Mathematical Theory of Fluids_, in _Sixth Report of Brit. Assoc._ p. 226; and _Herschel's Nat. Philos._ p. 231. Although Boyle preceded Mariotte by a quarter of a century, the discovery is rather unfairly called the law of Boyle and Mariotte; while foreign writers, refining on this, frequently omit the name of Boyle altogether, and term it the law of Mariotte! See, for instance, _Liebig's Letters on Chemistry_, p. 126; _Monteil Divers Etats_, vol. viii. p. 122; _Kaemtz's Meteorology_, p. 236; _Comte_, _Philos. Pos._ vol. i. pp. 583, 645, vol. ii. pp. 484, 615; _Pouillet_, _Elémens de Physique_, vol. i. p. 339, vol. ii. pp. 58, 183.

[613] 'L'un des créateurs de la physique expérimentale, l'illustre Robert Boyle, avait aussi reconnu, dès le milieu du dix-septième siècle, une grande partie des faits qui servent aujourd'hui de base à cette chimie nouvelle.' _Cuvier_, _Progrès des Sciences_, vol. i. p. 30. The 'aussi' refers to Rey. See also _Cuvier_, _Hist. des Sciences Naturelles_, part ii. pp. 322, 346-349. A still more recent writer says, that Boyle 'stood, in fact, on the very brink of the pneumatic chemistry of Priestley; he had in his hand the key to the great discovery of Lavoisier.' _Johnston on Dimorphous Bodies_, in _Reports of Brit. Assoc._ vol. vi. p. 163. See further respecting Boyle, _Robin et Verdeil_, _Chimie Anatomique_, Paris, 1853, vol. i. pp. 576, 577, 579, vol. ii. p. 24; and _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. iv. p. 177.

The application of these discoveries to the happiness of Man, and particularly to what may be called the material interests of civilization, will be traced in another part of this work; but what I now wish to observe, is the way in which such investigations harmonized with the movement I am attempting to describe. In the whole of his physical inquiries, Boyle constantly insists upon two fundamental principles: namely, the importance of individual experiments, and the comparative unimportance of the facts which, on these subjects, antiquity has handed down.[614] These are the two great keys to his method: they are the views which he inherited from Bacon, and they are also the views which have been held by every man who, during the last two centuries, has added anything of moment to the stock of human knowledge. First to doubt,[615] then to inquire, and then to discover, has been the process universally followed by our great teachers. So strongly did Boyle feel this, that though he was an eminently religious man,[616] he gave to the most popular of his scientific works the title of _The Sceptical Chemist_; meaning to intimate, that until men were sceptical concerning the chemistry of their own time, it would be impossible that they should advance far in the career which lay before them. Nor can we fail to observe that this remarkable work, in which such havoc was made with old notions, was published in 1661,[617] the year after the accession of Charles II., in whose reign the spread of incredulity was indeed rapid, since it was seen not only among the intellectual classes, but even among the nobles and personal friends of the king. It is true, that in that rank of society, it assumed an offensive and degenerate form. But the movement must have been one of no common energy which, in so early a stage, could thus penetrate the recesses of the palace, and excite the minds of the courtiers; a lazy and feeble race, who from the frivolity of their habits are, under ordinary circumstances, predisposed to superstition, and prepared to believe whatever the wisdom of their fathers has bequeathed to them.

[614] This disregard of ancient authority appears so constantly in his works, that it is difficult to choose among innumerable passages which might be quoted. I will select one which strikes me as well expressed, and is certainly very characteristic. In his _Free Inquiry into the vulgarly received Notion of Nature_, he says (_Boyle's Works_, vol. iv. p. 359), 'For I am wont to judge of opinions as of coins: I consider much less, in any one that I am to receive, whose inscription it bears, than what metal it is made of. It is indifferent enough to me whether it was stamped many years or ages since, or came but yesterday from the mint.' In other places he speaks of the 'schoolmen' and 'gownmen' with a contempt not much inferior to that expressed by Locke himself.

[615] In his _Considerations touching Experimental Essays_, he says (_Boyle's Works_, vol. i. p. 197), 'Perhaps you will wonder, Pyrophilus, that in almost every one of the following essays I should speak so doubtingly, and use so often _perhaps_, _it seems_, _it is not improbable_, and such other expressions as argue a diffidence of the truth of the opinions I incline to,' &c. Indeed, this spirit is seen at every turn. Thus his _Essay on Crystals_, which, considering the then state of knowledge, is a remarkable production, is entitled 'Doubts and Experiments touching the curious Figures of Salts.' _Works_, vol. ii. p. 488. It is, therefore, with good reason that M. Humboldt terms him 'the cautious and doubting Robert Boyle.' _Humboldt's Cosmos_, vol. ii. p. 730.

[616] On the sincere Christianity of Boyle, compare _Burnet's Lives and Characters_, edit. Jebb, 1833, pp. 351-360; _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. i. pp. 32, 33; _Whewell's Bridgewater Treatise_, p. 273. He made several attempts to reconcile the scientific method with the defence of established religious opinions. See one of the best instances of this, in _Boyle's Works_, vol. v. pp. 38, 39.

[617] _The Sceptical Chemist_ is in _Boyle's Works_, vol. i. pp. 290-371. It went through two editions in the author's lifetime, an unusual success for a book of that kind. _Boyle's Works_, vol. i. p. 375, vol. iv. p. 89, vol. v. p. 345. I find from a letter written in 1696 (_Fairfax Correspondence_, vol. iv. p. 344), that Boyle's works were then becoming scarce, and that there was an intention of reprinting the whole of them. In regard to the _Sceptical Chemist_, it was so popular, that it attracted the attention of Monconys, a French traveller, who visited London in 1663, and from whom we learn that it was to be bought for four shillings, 'pour quatre chelins.' _Voyages de Monconys_, vol. iii. p. 67, edit. 1695; a book containing some very curious facts respecting London in the reign of Charles II.; but, so far as I am aware, not quoted by any English historian. In _Sprengel's Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. v. pp. 78-9, there is a summary of the views advocated in the _Sceptical Chemist_, respecting which Sprengel says, 'Ce fut cependant aussi en Angleterre que s'élevèrent les premiers doutes sur l'exactitude des explications chimiques.'

In everything this tendency was now seen. Everything marked a growing determination to subordinate old notions to new inquiries. At the very moment when Boyle was prosecuting his labours, Charles II. incorporated the Royal Society, which was formed with the avowed object of increasing knowledge by direct experiment.[618] And it is well worthy of remark, that the charter now first granted to this celebrated institution declares that its object is the extension of natural knowledge, as opposed to that which is supernatural.[619]

[618] 'From the nature and constitution of the Royal Society, the objects of their attention were necessarily unlimited. The physical sciences, however, or those which are promoted by experiment, were their declared objects; and experiment was the method which they professed to follow in accomplishing their purpose.' _Thomson's Hist. of the Royal Society_, p. 6. When the society was first instituted, experiments were so unusual, that there was a difficulty of finding the necessary workmen in London. See a curious passage in _Weld's Hist. of the Royal Society_, 1848, vol. ii. p. 88.

[619] Dr. Paris (_Life of Sir H. Davy_, 1831, vol. ii. p. 178) says, 'The charter of the Royal Society states, that it was established for the improvement of _natural_ science. This epithet _natural_ was originally intended to imply a meaning, of which very few persons, I believe, are aware. At the period of the establishment of the society, the arts of witchcraft and divination were very extensively encouraged; and the word _natural_ was therefore introduced in contradistinction to _supernatural_.' The charters granted by Charles II. are printed in _Weld's History of the Royal Society_, vol. ii. pp. 481-521. Evelyn (_Diary,_ 13 _Aug._ 1662, vol. ii. p. 195) mentions, that the object of the Royal Society was 'natural knowledge.' See also _Aubrey's Letters and Lives_, vol. ii. p. 358; _Pulteney's Hist. of Botany_, vol. ii. pp. 97, 98; and on the distinction thus established in the popular mind between natural and supernatural, compare _Boyle's Works_, vol. ii. p. 455, vol. iv. pp. 288, 359.

It is easy to imagine with what terror and disgust these things were viewed by those inordinate admirers of antiquity who, solely occupied in venerating past ages, are unable either to respect the present or hope for the future. These great obstructors of mankind played, in the seventeenth century, the same part as they play in our own day, rejecting every novelty, and therefore opposing every improvement. The angry contest which arose between the two parties, and the hostility directed against the Royal Society, as the first institution in which the idea of progress was distinctly embodied, are among the most instructive parts of our history, and on another occasion I shall relate them at considerable length. At present it is enough to say, that the reactionary party, though led by an overwhelming majority of the clergy, was entirely defeated; as, indeed, was to be expected, seeing that their opponents had on their side nearly all the intellect of the country, and were moreover reinforced by such aid as the court could bestow. The progress was, in truth, so rapid as to carry away with it some of the ablest members even of the ecclesiastical profession; their love of knowledge proving too strong for the old traditions in which they had been bred. But these were exceptional cases, and, speaking generally, there is no doubt that in the reign of Charles II. the antagonism between physical science and the theological spirit was such as to induce nearly the whole of the clergy to array themselves against the science, and seek to bring it into discredit. Nor ought we to be surprised that they should have adopted this course. That inquisitive and experimental spirit which they wished to check was not only offensive to their prejudices, but it was also detrimental to their power. For, in the first place, the mere habit of cultivating physical science taught men to require a severity of proof which it was soon found that the clergy were, in their own department, unable to supply. And, in the second place, the additions made to physical knowledge opened new fields of thought, and thus tended still further to divert attention from ecclesiastical topics. Both these effects would of course be limited to the comparatively few persons who were interested in scientific inquiries: it is, however, to be observed, that the ultimate results of such inquiries must have been extended over a far wider surface. This may be called their secondary influence; and the way in which it operated is well worth our attention, because an acquaintance with it will go far to explain the reason of that marked opposition which has always existed between superstition and knowledge.

It is evident, that a nation perfectly ignorant of physical laws will refer to supernatural causes all the phenomena by which it is surrounded.[620] But so soon as natural science begins to do its work, there are introduced the elements of a great change. Each successive discovery, by ascertaining the law that governs certain events, deprives them of that apparent mystery in which they were formerly involved.[621] The love of the marvellous becomes proportionably diminished; and when any science has made such progress as to enable those who are acquainted with it to foretell the events with which it deals, it is clear that the whole of those events are at once withdrawn from the jurisdiction of supernatural, and brought under the authority of natural powers.[622] The business of physical philosophy is, to explain external phenomena with a view to their prediction; and every successful prediction which is recognised by the people causes a disruption of one of those links which, as it were, bind the imagination to the occult and invisible world. Hence it is that, supposing other things equal, the superstition of a nation must always bear an exact proportion to the extent of its physical knowledge. This may be in some degree verified by the ordinary experience of mankind. For if we compare the different classes of society, we shall find that they are superstitious in proportion as the phenomena with which they are brought in contact have or have not been explained by natural laws. The credulity of sailors is notorious, and every literature contains evidence of the multiplicity of their superstitions, and of the tenacity with which they cling to them.[623] This is perfectly explicable by the principle I have laid down. Meteorology has not yet been raised to a science; and the laws which regulate winds and storms being in consequence still unknown, it naturally follows, that the class of men most exposed to their dangers should be precisely the class which is most superstitious.[624] On the other hand, soldiers live upon an element much more obedient to man, and they are less liable than sailors to those risks which defy the calculations of science. Soldiers, therefore, have fewer inducements to appeal to supernatural interference; and it is universally observed, that as a body they are less superstitious than sailors. If, again, we compare agriculturists with manufacturers, we shall see the operation of the same principle. To the cultivators of land, one of the most important circumstances is the weather, which, if it turn out unfavourable, may at once defeat all their calculations. But science not having yet succeeded in discovering the laws of rain, men are at present unable to foretell it for any considerable period; the inhabitant of the country is, therefore, driven to believe that it is the result of supernatural agency, and we still see the extraordinary spectacle of prayers offered up in our churches for dry weather or for wet weather; a superstition which to future ages will appear as childish as the feelings of pious awe with which our fathers regarded the presence of a comet, or the approach of an eclipse. We are now acquainted with the laws which determine the movements of comets and eclipses; and as we are able to predict their appearance, we have ceased to pray that we may be preserved from them.[625] But because our researches into the phenomena of rain happen to have been less successful,[626] we resort to the impious contrivance of calling in the aid of the Deity to supply those deficiencies in science which are the result of our own sloth; and we are not ashamed, in our public churches, to prostitute the rites of religion by using them as a cloak to conceal an ignorance we ought frankly to confess.[627] The agriculturist is thus taught to ascribe to supernatural agency the most important phenomena with which he is concerned;[628] and there can be no doubt that this is one of the causes of those superstitious feelings by which the inhabitants of the country are unfavourably contrasted with those of the town.[629] But the manufacturer, and, indeed, nearly every one engaged in the business of cities, has employments, the success of which being regulated by his own abilities, has no connexion with those unexplained events that perplex the imagination of the cultivators of the earth. He who, by his ingenuity, works up the raw material, is evidently less affected by uncontrollable occurrences, than he by whom the raw material is originally grown. Whether it is fair, or whether it is wet, he pursues his labours with equal success, and learns to rely solely upon his own energy, and the cunning of his own arm. As the sailor is naturally more superstitious than the soldier, because he has to deal with a more unstable element; just in the same way is the agriculturist more superstitious than the mechanic, because he is more frequently and more seriously affected by events which the ignorance of some men makes them call capricious, and the ignorance of other men makes them call supernatural.

[620] The speculative view of this tendency has been recently illustrated in the most comprehensive manner by M. Auguste Comte, in his _Philosophie Positive_; and his conclusions in regard to the earliest stage of the human mind are confirmed by everything we know of barbarous nations; and they are also confirmed, as he has decisively proved, by the history of physical science. In addition to the facts he has adduced, I may mention, that the history of geology supplies evidence analogous to that which he has collected from other departments.

A popular notion of the working of this belief in supernatural causation may be seen in a circumstance related by Combe. He says, that in the middle of the eighteenth century the country west of Edinburgh was so unhealthy, 'that every spring the farmers and their servants were seized with fever and ague.' As long as the cause of this was unknown, 'these visitations were believed to be sent by Providence;' but after a time the land was drained, the ague disappeared, and the inhabitants perceived that what they had believed to be supernatural was perfectly natural, and that the cause was the state of the land, not the intervention of the Deity. _Combe's Constitution of Man_, Edinb. 1847, p. 156.

[621] I say apparent mystery, because it does not at all lessen the real mystery. But this does not affect the accuracy of my remark, inasmuch as the people at large never enter into such subtleties as the difference between Law and Cause; a difference, indeed, which is so neglected, that it is often lost sight of even in scientific books. All that the people know is, that events which they once believed to be directly controlled by the Deity, and modified by Him, are not only foretold by the human mind, but are altered by human interference. The attempts which Paley and others have made to solve this mystery by rising from the laws to the cause, are evidently futile, because to the eye of reason the solution is as incomprehensible as the problem; and the arguments of the natural theologians, in so far as they are arguments, must depend on reason. As Mr. Newman truly says, 'A God uncaused and existing from eternity, is to the full as incomprehensible as a world uncaused and existing from eternity. We must not reject the latter theory as incomprehensible; for so is every other possible theory.' _Newman's Natural History of the Soul_, 1849, p. 36. The truth of this conclusion is unintentionally confirmed by the defence of the old method, which is set up by Dr. Whewell in his _Bridgewater Treatise_, pp. 262-5; because the remarks made by that able writer refer to men who, from their vast powers, were most likely to rise to that transcendental view of religion which is slowly but steadily gaining ground among us. Kant, probably the deepest thinker of the eighteenth century, clearly saw that no arguments drawn from the external world could prove the existence of a First Cause. See, among other passages, two particularly remarkable in _Kritik der reinen Vernunft_, _Kant's Werke_, vol. ii. pp. 478, 481, on 'der physikotheologische Beweis.'

[622] This is tersely expressed by M. Lamennais: 'Pourquoi les corps gravitent-ils les uns vers les autres? Parceque Dieu l'a voulu, disaient les anciens. Parceque les corps s'attirent, dit la science.' _Maury_, _Légendes du Moyen Age_, p. 33. See to the same effect _Mackay's Religious Development_, 1850, vol. i. pp. 5, 30, 31, and elsewhere. See also a partial statement of the antithesis in _Copleston's Inquiry into Necessity and Predestination_, p. 49; an ingenious but overrated book.

[623] I much regret that I did not collect proof of this at an earlier period of my reading. But having omitted taking the requisite notes, I can only refer, on the superstition of sailors to _Heber's Journey through India_, vol. i. p. 423; _Richardson's Travels in the Sahara_, vol. i. p. 11; _Burckhardt's Travels in Arabia_, vol. ii. p. 347; _Davis's Chinese_, vol. iii. pp. 16, 17; _Travels of Ibn Batuta in the Fourteenth Century_, p. 43; _Journal of Asiat. Soc._ vol. i. p. 9; _Works of Sir Thomas Browne_, vol. i. p. 130; _Alison's Hist. of Europe_, vol. iv. p. 566; _Burnes's Travels into Bokhara_, vol. iii. p. 53; _Leigh Hunt's Autobiography_, 1850, vol. ii. p. 255; _Cumberland's Memoirs_, 1807, vol. i. pp. 422-425; _Walsh's Brazil_, vol. i. pp. 96, 97; _Richardson's Arctic Expedition_, vol. i. p. 93; _Holcroft's Memoirs_, vol. i. p. 207, vol. iii. p. 197.

[624] Andokides, when accused before the dikastery at Athens, said, 'No, dikasts; the dangers of accusation and trial are human, but the dangers encountered at sea are divine.' _Grote's Hist. of Greece_, vol. xi. p. 252. Thus, too, it has been observed, that the dangers of the whale-fishery stimulated the superstition of the Anglo-Saxons. See _Kemble's Saxons in England_, vol. i. pp. 390, 391. Erman, who mentions the dangerous navigation of the Lake of Baikal, says, 'There is a saying at Irkutsk, that it is only upon the Baikal, in the autumn, that a man learns to pray from his heart.' _Erman's Travels in Siberia_, vol. ii. p. 186.

[625] In Europe, in the tenth century, an entire army fled before one of those appearances, which would now scarcely terrify a child: 'Toute l'armée d'Othon se dispersa subitement à l'apparition d'une éclipse de soleil, qui la remplit de terreur, et qui fut regardée comme l'annonce du malheur qu'on attendait depuis longtemps.' _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. ii. p. 368. The terror inspired by eclipses was not finally destroyed before the eighteenth century; and in the latter half of the seventeenth century they still caused great fear both in France and in England. See _Evelyn's Diary_, vol. ii. p. 52, vol. iii. p. 372; _Carlyle's Cromwell_, vol. ii. p. 366; _Lettres de Patin_, vol. iii. p. 36. Compare _Voyages de Monconys_, vol. v. p. 104, with _Hare's Guesses at Truth_, 2nd series, pp. 194, 195. There probably never has been an ignorant nation whose superstition has not been excited by eclipses. For evidence of the universality of this feeling, see _Symes's Embassy to Ava_, vol. ii. p. 296; _Raffles' Hist. of Java_, vol. i. p. 530; _Southey's Hist. of Brazil_, vol. i. p. 354, vol. ii. p. 371; _Marsden's Hist. of Sumatra_, p. 159; _Niebuhr_, _Description de l'Arabie_, p. 105; _Moffat's Southern Africa_, p. 337; _Mungo Park's Travels_, vol. i. p. 414; _Moorcroft's Travels in the Himalayan Provinces_, vol. ii. p. 4; _Crawfurd's Hist. of the Indian Archipelago_, vol. i. p. 305; _Ellis's Polynesian Researches_, vol. i. p. 331; _Mackay's Religious Development_, vol. i. p. 425; _Works of Sir W. Jones_, vol. iii. p. 176, vol. vi. p. 16; _Wilson's Note_ in the _Vishnu Purana_, p. 140; _Wilson's Theatre of the Hindus_, vol. i. part ii. p. 90; _Montucla_, _Hist. des Mathématiques_, vol. i. p. 444; _Asiatic Researches_, vol. xii. p. 484; _Ward's View of the Hindoos_, vol. i. p. 101; _Prescott's Hist. of Peru_, vol. i. p. 123; _Kohl's Russia_, p. 374; _Thirlwall's Hist. of Greece_, vol. iii. p. 440, vol. vi. p. 216; _Murray's Life of Bruce_, p. 103; _Turner's Embassy to Tibet_, p. 289; _Grote's Hist. of Greece_, vol. vii. p. 432, vol. xii. pp. 205, 557; _Journal Asiatique_, I^e série, vol. iii. p. 202, Paris, 1823; _Clot-Bey_, _de la Peste_, Paris, 1840, p. 224.

In regard to the feelings inspired by comets, and the influence of Bayle in removing those superstitions late in the seventeenth century, compare _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der Philosoph._, vol. xi. p. 252; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iii. p. 415; _Lettres de Sevigné_, vol. iv. p. 336; _Autobiography of Sir S. D'Ewes_, edit. Halliwell, vol. i. pp. 122, 123, 136.

[626] On the peculiar complications which have retarded meteorology, and thus prevented us from accurately predicting the weather, compare _Forbes on Meteorology_, in _Second Report of British Association_, pp. 249-251; _Cuvier_, _Progrès des Sciences_, vol. i. pp. 69, 248; _Kaemtz's Meteorology_, pp. 2-4; _Prout's Bridgewater Treatise_, pp. 290-295; _Somerville's Physical Geog._ vol. ii. pp. 18, 19. But all the best authorities are agreed that this ignorance cannot last long; and that the constant advance which we are now making in physical science will eventually enable us to explain even these phenomena. Thus, for instance, Sir John Leslie says, 'It cannot be disputed, however, that all the changes which happen in the mass of our atmosphere, involved, capricious, and irregular as they may appear, are yet the necessary results of principles as fixed, and perhaps as simple, as those which direct the revolutions of the solar system. Could we unravel the intricate maze, we might trace the action of each distinct cause, and hence deduce the ultimate effects arising from their combined operation. With the possession of such data, we might safely predict the state of the weather at any future period, as we now calculate an eclipse of the sun or moon, or foretell a conjunction of the planets.' _Leslie's Natural Philosophy_, p. 405: see also p. 185, and the remarks of Mr. Snow Harris (_Brit. Assoc. for 1844_, p. 241), and of Mr. Hamilton (_Journal of Geog. Soc._ vol. xix. p. xci.) Thus, too, Dr. Whewell (_Bridgewater Treatise_, p. 3) says, that 'the changes of winds and skies are produced by causes, of whose rules "no philosophical mind" will doubt the fixity.'

[627] This connexion between ignorance and devotion is so clearly marked, that many nations have a separate god for the weather, to whom they say their prayers. In countries where men stop short of this, they ascribe the changes to witchcraft, or to some other supernatural power. See _Mariner's Tonga Islands_, vol. ii. pp. 7, 108; _Tuckey's Expedit. to the Zaire_, pp. 214, 215; _Ellis's Hist. of Madagascar_, vol. ii. p. 354; _Asiatic Researches_, vol. vi. pp. 193, 194, 297, vol. xvi. pp. 223, 342; _Southey's Hist. of Brazil_, vol. iii. p. 187; _Davis's Chinese_, vol. ii. p. 154; _Beausobre_, _Hist. de Manichée_, vol. ii. p. 394; _Cudworth's Intellect. Syst._ vol. ii. p. 539. The Hindus refer rain to supernatural causes in the _Rig Veda_, which is the oldest of their religious books; and they have held similar notions ever since. _Rig Veda Sanhita_, vol. i. pp. xxx. 10, 19, 26, 145, 175, 205, 224, 225, 265, 266, vol. ii. pp. 28, 41, 62, 110, 153, 158, 164, 166, 192, 199, 231, 258, 268, 293, 329; _Journal of Asiatic Soc._ vol. iii. p. 91; _Coleman's Mythol. of the Hindus_, p. 111; _Ward's View of the Hindoos_, vol. i. p. 38. See further two curious passages in the _Dabistan_, vol. i. p. 115, vol. ii. p. 337; and on the 'Rain-makers,' compare _Catlin's North-American Indians_, vol. i. pp. 134-140, with _Buchanan's North-American Indians_, pp. 258, 260: also a precisely similar class in Africa (_Moffat's Southern Africa_, pp. 305-325), and in Arabia (_Niebuhr_, _Desc. de l'Arabie_, pp. 237, 238).

Coming to a state of society nearer our own, we find that in the ninth century it was taken for granted in Christian countries that wind and hail were the work of wizards (_Neander's Hist. of the Church_, vol. vi. pp. 118, 139); that similar views passed on to the sixteenth century, and were sanctioned by Luther (_Maury_, _Légendes Pieuses_, pp. 18, 19); and finally, that when Swinburne was in Spain, only eighty years ago, he found the clergy on the point of putting an end to the opera, because they 'attributed the want of rain to the influence of that ungodly entertainment.' _Swinburne's Travels through Spain in 1775 and 1776_, vol. i. p. 177, 2nd edit. London, 1787.

[628] See some remarks by the Rev. Mr. Ward, which strike me as rather incautious, and which certainly are dangerous to his own profession, as increasing the hostility between it and science, in _Ward's Ideal of a Christian Church_, p. 278. What Coleridge has said, is worth attending to: see _The Friend_, vol. iii. pp. 222, 223.

[629] M. Kohl, whose acuteness as a traveller is well known, has found that the agricultural classes are the 'most blindly ignorant and prejudiced' of all. _Kohl's Russia_, p. 365. And Sir R. Murchison, who has enjoyed extensive means of observation, familiarly mentions the 'credulous farmers.' _Murchison's Siluria_, p. 61. In Asia, exactly the same tendency has been noticed: see _Marsden's Hist. of Sumatra_, p. 63. Some curious evidence of agricultural superstitions respecting the weather may be seen in _Monteil_, _Hist. des divers Etats_, vol. iii. pp. 31, 39.

It would be easy, by an extension of these remarks, to show how the progress of manufactures, besides increasing the national wealth, has done immense service to civilization, by inspiring Man with a confidence in his own resources;[630] and how, by giving rise to a new class of employments, it has, if I may so say, shifted the scene in which superstition is most likely to dwell. But to trace this would carry me beyond my present limits; and the illustrations already given are sufficient to explain how the theological spirit must have been diminished by that love of experimental science, which forms one of the principal features in the reign of Charles II.[631]

[630] In this point of view, the opposite tendencies of agriculture and manufactures are judiciously contrasted by Mr. Porter, at the end of his essay on the _Statistics of Agriculture_, _Journal of the Statist. Soc._ vol. ii. pp. 295, 296.

[631] Indeed, there never has been a period in England in which physical experiments were so fashionable. This is merely worth observing as a symptom of the age, since Charles II. and the nobles were not likely to add, and did not add, anything to our knowledge; and their patronage of science, such as it was, degraded it rather than advanced it. Still, the prevalence of the taste is curious; and in addition to the picture drawn by Mr. Macaulay (_Hist. of England_, 1st edit. vol. i. pp. 408-412), I may refer the reader to _Monconys' Voyages_, vol. iii. p. 31; _Sorbiere's Voyage to England_, pp. 32, 33; _Evelyn's Diary_, vol. ii. pp. 199, 286; _Pepys' Diary_, vol. i. p. 375, vol. ii. p. 34, vol. iii. p. 85, vol. iv. p. 229; _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. i. pp. 171, 322, vol. ii. p. 275; _Burnet's Lives_, p. 144; _Campbell's Chief-Justices_, vol. i. p. 582.

I have now laid before the reader what I conceive to be the point of view from which we ought to estimate a period whose true nature seems to me to have been grievously misunderstood. Those political writers who judge events without regard to that intellectual development of which they are but a part, will find much to condemn, and scarcely anything to approve, in the reign of Charles II. By such authors, I shall be censured for having travelled out of that narrow path in which history has been too often confined. And yet I am at a loss to perceive how it is possible, except by the adoption of such a course, to understand a period which, on a superficial view, is full of the grossest inconsistencies. This difficulty will be rendered very obvious, if we compare for a moment the nature of the government of Charles with the great things which, under that government, were peaceably effected. Never before was there such a want of apparent connexion between the means and the end. If we look only at the characters of the rulers, and at their foreign policy, we must pronounce the reign of Charles II. to be the worst that has ever been seen in England. If, on the other hand, we confine our observations to the laws which were passed, and to the principles which were established, we shall be obliged to confess that this same reign forms one of the brightest epochs in our national annals. Politically and morally, there were to be found in the government all the elements of confusion, of weakness, and of crime. The king himself was a mean and spiritless voluptuary, without the morals of a Christian, and almost without the feelings of a man.[632] His ministers, with the exception of Clarendon, whom he hated for his virtues, had not one of the attributes of statesmen, and nearly all of them were pensioned by the crown of France.[633] The weight of taxation was increased,[634] while the security of the kingdom was diminished.[635] By the forced surrender of the charters of the towns, our municipal rights were endangered.[636] By shutting the exchequer, our national credit was destroyed.[637] Though immense sums were spent in maintaining our naval and military power, we were left so defenceless, that when a war broke out, which had long been preparing, we seemed suddenly to be taken by surprise. Such was the miserable incapacity of the government, that the fleets of Holland were able, not only to ride triumphant round our coasts, but to sail up the Thames, attack our arsenals, burn our ships, and insult the metropolis of England.[638] Yet, notwithstanding all these things, it is an undoubted fact, that in this same reign of Charles II. more steps were taken in the right direction than had been taken, in any period of equal length, during the twelve centuries we had occupied the soil of Britain. By the mere force of that intellectual movement, which was unwittingly supported by the crown, there were effected, in the course of a few years, reforms which changed the face of society.[639] The two great obstacles by which the nation had long been embarrassed, consisted of a spiritual tyranny and a territorial tyranny: the tyranny of the church and the tyranny of the nobles. An attempt was now made to remedy these evils; not by palliatives, but by striking at the power of the classes who did the mischief. For now it was that a law was placed on the statute-book, taking away that celebrated writ, which enabled the bishops or their delegates to cause those men to be burned whose religion was different to their own.[640] Now it was that the clergy were deprived of the privilege of taxing themselves, and were forced to submit to an assessment made by the ordinary legislature.[641] Now, too, there was enacted a law forbidding any bishop, or any ecclesiastical court, to tender the _ex-officio_ oath, by which the church had hitherto enjoyed the power of compelling a suspected person to criminate himself.[642] In regard to the nobles, it was also during the reign of Charles II. that the House of Lords, after a sharp struggle, was obliged to abandon its pretensions to an original jurisdiction in civil suits; and thus lost for ever an important resource for extending its own influence.[643] It was in the same reign that there was settled the right of the people to be taxed entirely by their representatives; the House of Commons having ever since retained the sole power of proposing money bills, and regulating the amount of imposts, merely leaving to the Peers the form of consenting to what has been already determined.[644] These were the attempts which were made to bridle the clergy and the nobles. But there were also effected other things of equal importance. By the destruction of the scandalous prerogatives of Purveyance and Preemption, a limit was set to the power of the sovereign to vex his refractory subjects.[645] By the Habeas Corpus Act, the liberty of every Englishman was made as certain as law could make it; it being guaranteed to him, that if accused of crime, he, instead of languishing in prison, as had often been the case, should be brought to a fair and speedy trial.[646] By the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries, a security hitherto unknown was conferred upon private property.[647] By the abolition of general impeachments, an end was put to a great engine of tyranny, with which powerful and unscrupulous men had frequently ruined their political adversaries.[648] By the cessation of those laws which restricted the liberty of printing, there was laid the foundation of that great Public Press, which, more than any other single cause, has diffused among the people a knowledge of their own power, and has thus, to an almost incredible extent, aided the progress of English civilization.[649] And, to complete this noble picture, there were finally destroyed those feudal incidents, which our Norman conquerors had imposed,--the military tenures; the court of wards; the fines for alienation; the right of forfeiture for marriage by reason of tenure; the aids, the homages, the escuages, the primer seisins; and all those mischievous subtleties, of which the mere names sound in modern ears as a wild and barbarous jargon, but which pressed upon our ancestors as real and serious evils.[650]

[632] His treatment of his young wife immediately after marriage is perhaps the worst thing recorded of this base and contemptible prince. _Lister's Life of Clarendon_, vol. ii. pp. 145-153. This is matter of proof; but Burnet (_Own Time_, vol. i. p. 522, and vol. ii. p. 467) whispers a horrible suspicion, which I cannot believe to be true, even of Charles II., and which Harris, who has collected some evidence of his astounding profligacy, does not mention, though he quotes one of the passages in Burnet. _Harris's Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. v. pp. 36-43. However, as Dr. Parr says, in reference to another accusation against him, 'There is little occasion to blacken the memory of that wicked monarch, Charles II., by the aid of invidious conjectures.' _Notes on James II._ in _Parr's Works_, vol. iv. p. 477. Compare _Fox's History of James II._ p. 71.

[633] Even Clarendon has been charged with receiving bribes from Louis XIV.; but for this there appears to be no good authority. Compare _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. pp. 66, 67 note, with _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iii, p. 213.

[634] _Lister's Life of Clarendon_, vol. ii. p. 377; _Harris's Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. iv. pp. 340-344.

[635] Immediately after the Restoration, the custom began of appointing to naval commands incompetent youths of birth, to the discouragement of those able officers who had been employed under Cromwell. Compare _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. i. p. 290, with _Pepys' Diary_, vol. ii. p. 413, vol. iii. pp. 68, 72.

[636] _Harris's Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. v. pp. 323-328. The court was so bent on abrogating the charter of the city of London, that Saunders was made chief-justice for the express purpose. See _Campbell's Chief-Justices_, vol. ii. p. 59. Roger North says (_Lives of the Norths_, vol. ii. p. 67), 'Nothing was accounted at court so meritorious as the procuring of charters, as the language then was.' Compare _Bulstrode's Memoirs_, pp. 379, 388.

[637] The panic caused by this scandalous robbery is described by De Foe; _Wilson's Life of De Foe_, vol. i. p. 52. See also _Calamy's Life of Himself_, vol. i. p. 78; _Parker's Hist. of his Own Time_, pp. 141-143. The amount stolen by the king is estimated at 1,328,526_l._ _Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue_, vol. i. p. 315. According to Lord Campbell, 'nearly a million and a half.' _Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. iv. p. 113.

[638] There is a very curious account in _Pepys' Diary_, vol. iii. pp. 242-264, of the terror felt by the Londoners on this occasion. Pepys himself buried his gold (p. 261 and pp. 376-379). Evelyn (_Diary_, vol. ii. p. 287) says: 'The alarme was so greate, that it put both country and citty into a paniq, feare, and consternation, such as I hope I shall never see more; every body was flying, none knew why or whither.'

[639] The most important of these reforms were carried, as is nearly always the case, in opposition to the real wishes of the ruling classes. Charles II. and James II. often said of the Habeas Corpus Act, 'that a government could not subsist with such a law.' _Dalrymple's Memoirs_, vol. ii. p. 104. Lord-Keeper Guilford was even opposed to the abolition of military tenures. 'He thought,' says his brother, 'the taking away of the tenures a desperate wound to the liberties of the people of England.' _Lives of the Norths_, vol. ii. p. 82. These are the sort of men by whom great nations are governed. A passage in _Life of James, by Himself_, edit. Clarke, vol. ii. p. 621, confirms the statement in Dalrymple, so far as James is concerned. This should be compared with a letter from Louis XIV., in the Barillon correspondence. Appendix to _Fox's James II._ p. cxxiv.

[640] _Blackstone's Commentaries_, vol. iv. p. 48; _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iii. p. 431. This destruction of the writ _De Hæretico comburendo_ was in 1677. It is noticed in _Palmer's Treatise on the Church_, vol. i. p. 500; and in _Collier's Ecclesiast. Hist._ vol. viii. p. 478.

[641] This was in 1664. See the account of it in _Collier's Ecclesiast. Hist._ vol. viii. pp. 463-466. Collier, who is evidently displeased by the change, says: 'The consenting, therefore, to be taxed by the temporal Commons, makes the clergy more dependent on a foreign body, takes away the right of disposing of their own money, and lays their estates in some measure at discretion.' See also, on the injury this has inflicted on the church, _Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation_, pp. 259, 260. And Coleridge (_Literary Remains_, vol. iv. pp. 152, 153) points this out as characterizing one of the three 'grand evil epochs of our present church.' So marked, however, was the tendency of that time, that this most important measure was peaceably effected by an arrangement between Sheldon and Clarendon. See the notes by Onslow in _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. i. p. 340, vol. iv. pp. 508, 509. Compare Lord Camden's statement (_Parl. Hist._ vol. xvi. p. 169) with the speech of Lord Bathurst (vol. xxii. p. 77); and of Lord Temple on Tooke's case (vol. xxxv. p. 1357). Mr. Carwithen (_Hist. of the Church of England_, vol. ii. p. 354, Oxford, 1849) grieves over 'this deprivation of the liberties of the English clergy.'

[642] 13 Car. II. c. 12. Compare _Stephens's Life of Tooke_, vol. i. pp. 169, 170, with _Blackstone's Commentaries_, vol. iii. p. 101. Mr. Hallam (_Const. Hist._ vol. i. pp. 197, 198) has adduced evidence of the way in which the clergy were accustomed to injure their opponents by the _ex-officio_ oath.

[643] This was the issue of the famous controversy respecting Skinner, in 1669; and 'from this time,' says Mr. Hallam, 'the Lords have tacitly abandoned all pretensions to an original jurisdiction in civil suits.' _Const. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 184. There is an account of this case of Skinner, which was connected with the East-India Company, in _Mill's Hist. of India_, vol. i. pp. 102, 103.

[644] _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. pp. 189-192; and _Eccleston's English Antiquities_, p. 326. The disputes between the two houses respecting taxation, are noticed very briefly in _Parker's Hist. of his Own Time_, pp. 135, 136.

[645] The 'famous rights of purveyance and preemption' were abolished by 12 Car. II. c. 24. _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 11. Burke, in his magnificent speech on Economical Reform, describes the abuses of the old system of purveyance. _Burke's Works_, vol. i. p. 239. See also _Kemble's Saxons in England_, vol. ii. p. 88, note; _Barrington on the Statutes_, pp. 183-185, 237; _Lingard's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. pp. 338, 339; _Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue_, vol. i. p. 232; _Parl. Hist._ vol. iii. p. 1299. These passages will give an idea of the iniquities practised under this 'right,' which, like most gross injustices, was one of the good old customs of the British constitution, being at least as ancient as Canute. See _Allen on the Royal Prerogative_, p. 152. Indeed, a recent writer of considerable learning (_Spence_, _Origin of the Laws of Europe_, p. 319) derives it from the Roman law. A bill had been brought in to take it away in 1656. See _Burton's Cromwellian Diary_, vol. i. p. 81. When Adam Smith wrote, it still existed in France and Germany. _Wealth of Nations_, book iii. chap. ii. p. 161.

[646] On the Habeas Corpus Act, which became law in 1679, see _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iii. pp. 345-347; _Mackintosh_, _Revolution of 1688_, p. 49; and _Lingard's Hist. of England_, vol. viii. p. 17. The peculiarities of this law, as compared with the imitations of it in other countries, are clearly stated in _Meyer_, _Esprit des Institutions Judiciaires_, vol. ii. p. 283. Mr. Lister (_Life of Clarendon_, vol. ii. p. 454) says: 'Imprisonment in gaols beyond the seas was not prevented by law till the passing of the Habeas Corpus Act, in 1679.'

[647] Blackstone (_Commentaries_, vol. iv. p. 439) calls this 'a great and necessary security to private property;' and Lord Campbell (_Chancellors_, vol. iii. p. 423) terms it 'the most important and most beneficial piece of juridical legislation of which we can boast.' On its effects, compare Jones's valuable _Commentary on Isæus_ (_Works of Sir W. Jones_, vol. iv. p. 239) with _Story's Conflict of Laws_, pp. 521, 522, 627, 884; and _Tayler on Statute Law_, in _Journal of Statistical Society_, vol. xvii. p. 150.

[648] Lord Campbell (_Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. iii. p. 247) says, that the struggle in 1667 'put an end to general impeachments.'

[649] Printing at first was regulated by royal proclamations; then by the Star-chamber; and afterwards by the Long Parliament. The decrees of the Star-chamber were taken as the basis of 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 33; but this act expired in 1679, and was not renewed during the reign of Charles II. Compare _Blackstone's Comment._ vol. iv. p. 152, with _Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers_, vol. i. p. 154, and _Fox's Hist. of James II._ p. 146.

[650] The fullest account I have seen in any history, of this great Revolution, which swept away the traditions and the language of feudalism, is that given in _Harris's Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. iv. pp. 369-378. But Harris, though an industrious collector, was a man of slender ability, and not at all aware of the real nature of a change, of which the obvious and immediately practical results formed the smallest part. The true point of view is, that it was a formal recognition by the legislature that the Middle Ages were extinct, and that it was necessary to inaugurate a more modern and innovating policy. Hereafter I shall have occasion to examine this in detail, and show how it was merely a symptom of a revolutionary movement. In the meantime the reader may refer to the very short notices in _Dalrymple's Hist. of Feudal Property_, p. 89; _Blackstone's Comment._ vol. ii. pp. 76, 77; _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 11; _Parl. Hist._ vol. iv. pp. 53, 167, 168; _Meyer_, _Institutions Judiciaires_, vol. ii. p. 58.

These were the things which were done in the reign of Charles II.; and if we consider the miserable incompetence of the king, the idle profligacy of his court, the unblushing venality of his ministers, the constant conspiracies to which the country was exposed from within, and the unprecedented insults to which it was subjected from without; if we, moreover, consider that to all this there were added two natural calamities of the most grievous description,--a Great Plague, which thinned society in all its ranks, and scattered confusion through the kingdom, and a Great Fire, which, besides increasing the mortality from the pestilence, destroyed in a moment those accumulations of industry by which industry itself is nourished;--if we put all these things together, how can we reconcile inconsistencies apparently so gross? How could so wonderful a progress be made in the face of these unparalleled disasters? How could such men, under such circumstances, effect such improvements? These are questions which our political compilers are unable to answer; because they look too much at the peculiarities of individuals, and too little at the temper of the age in which those individuals live. Such writers do not perceive that the history of every civilized country is the history of its intellectual development, which kings, statesmen, and legislators are more likely to retard than to hasten; because, however great their power may be, they are at best the accidental and insufficient representatives of the spirit of their time; and because, so far from being able to regulate the movements of the national mind, they themselves form the smallest part of it, and, in a general view of the progress of Man, are only to be regarded as the puppets who strut and fret their hour upon a little stage; while, beyond them, and on every side of them, are forming opinions and principles which they can scarcely perceive, but by which alone the whole course of human affairs is ultimately governed.

The truth is, that the vast legislative reforms, for which the reign of Charles II. is so remarkable, merely form a part of that movement, which, though traceable to a much earlier period, had only for three generations been in undisguised operation. These important improvements were the result of that bold, sceptical, inquiring, and reforming spirit, which had now seized the three great departments of Theology, of Science, and of Politics. The old principles of tradition, of authority, and of dogma, were gradually becoming weaker; and of course, in the same proportion, there was diminished the influence of the classes by whom those principles were chiefly upheld. As the power of particular sections of society thus declined, the power of the people at large increased. The real interests of the nation began to be perceived, so soon as the superstitions were dispersed by which those interests had long been obscured. This, I believe, is the real solution of what at first seems a curious problem,--namely, how it was that such comprehensive reforms should have been accomplished in so bad, and in many respects so infamous, a reign. It is, no doubt, true, that those reforms were essentially the result of the intellectual march of the age; but, so far from being made in spite of the vices of the sovereign, they were actually aided by them. With the exception of the needy profligates who thronged his court, all classes of men soon learned to despise a king who was a drunkard, a libertine, and a hypocrite; who had neither shame nor sensibility; and who, in point of honour, was unworthy to enter the presence of the meanest of his subjects. To have the throne filled for a quarter of a century by such a man as this, was the surest way of weakening that ignorant and indiscriminate loyalty, to which the people have often sacrificed their dearest rights. Thus, the character of the king, merely considered from this point of view, was eminently favourable to the growth of national liberty.[651] But the advantage did not stop there. The reckless debaucheries of Charles made him abhor everything approaching to restraint; and this gave him a dislike to a class, whose profession, at least, pre-supposes a conduct of more than ordinary purity. The consequence was, that he, not from views of enlightened policy, but merely from a love of vicious indulgence, always had a distaste for the clergy; and, so far from advancing their power, frequently expressed for them an open contempt.[652] His most intimate friends directed against them those coarse and profligate jokes which are preserved in the literature of the time; and which, in the opinion of the courtiers, were to be ranked among the noblest specimens of human wit. From men of this sort the church had, indeed, little to apprehend; but their language, and the favour with which it was received, are part of the symptoms by which we may study the temper of that age. Many other illustrations will occur to most readers; I may, however, mention one, which is interesting on account of the eminence of the philosopher concerned in it. The most dangerous opponent of the clergy in the seventeenth century, was certainly Hobbes, the subtlest dialectician of his time; a writer, too, of singular clearness, and, among British metaphysicians, inferior only to Berkeley. This profound thinker published several speculations very unfavourable to the church, and directly opposed to principles which are essential to ecclesiastical authority. As a natural consequence, he was hated by the clergy; his doctrines were declared to be highly pernicious; and he was accused of wishing to subvert the national religion, and corrupt the national morals.[653] So far did this proceed, that, during his life, and for several years after his death, every man who ventured to think for himself was stigmatized as a Hobbist, or, as it was sometimes called, a Hobbian.[654] This marked hostility on the part of the clergy was a sufficient recommendation to the favour of Charles. The king, even before his accession, had imbibed many of his principles;[655] and, after the Restoration, he treated the author with what was deemed a scandalous respect. He protected him from his enemies; he somewhat ostentatiously hung up his portrait in his own private room at Whitehall;[656] and he even conferred a pension on this, the most formidable opponent who had yet appeared against the spiritual hierarchy.[657]

[651] Mr. Hallam has a noble passage on the services rendered to English civilization by the vices of the English court: 'We are, however, much indebted to the memory of Barbara Duchess of Cleveland, Louisa Duchess of Portsmouth, and Mrs. Eleanor Gwyn. We owe a tribute of gratitude to the Mays, the Killigrews, the Chiffinches, and the Grammonts. They played a serviceable part in ridding the kingdom of its besotted loyalty. They saved our forefathers from the Star-chamber and the High-commission court; they laboured in their vocation against standing armies and corruption; they pressed forward the great ultimate security of English freedom--the expulsion of the House of Stuart.' _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 50.

[652] Burnet (_Own Time_, vol. i. p. 448) tells us that, in 1667, the king, even at the council-board, expressed himself against the bishops, and said, that the clergy 'thought of nothing but to get good benefices, and to keep a good table.' See also, on his dislike to the bishops, vol. ii. p. 22; and _Pepys' Diary_, vol. iv. p. 2. In another place, vol. iv. p. 42, Pepys writes: 'And I believe the hierarchy will in a little time be shaken, whether they will or no; the king being offended with them, and set upon it, as I hear.' Evelyn, in a conversation with Pepys, noticed with regret such conduct of Charles, 'that a bishop shall never be seen about him, as the king of France hath always.' _Pepys_, vol. iii. p. 201. Evelyn, in his benevolent way, ascribes this to 'the negligence of the clergy;' but history teaches us that the clergy have never neglected kings, except when the king has first neglected them. Sir John Reresby gives a curious account of a conversation Charles II. held with him respecting 'mitred heads,' in which the feeling of the king is very apparent. _Reresby's Travels and Memoirs_, p. 238.

[653] On the animosity of the clergy against Hobbes, and on the extent to which he reciprocated it, compare _Aubrey's Letters and Lives_, vol. ii. pp. 532, 631; _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der Philos._ vol. x. p. 111; with the angry language of Burnet (_Own Time_, vol. i. p. 322), and of Whiston (_Memoirs_, p. 251). See also _Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses_, edit. Bliss, vol. iii. p. 1211. Monconys, who was in London in 1663, says of Hobbes, 'Il me dit l'aversion que tous les gens d'église tant catholiques que protestans avoient pour lui.' _Monconys' Voyages_, vol. iii. p. 43; and p. 115, 'M. Hobbes, que je trouvai toujours fort ennemi des prêtres catholiques et des protestans.' About the same time, Sorbiere was in London; and he writes respecting Hobbes: 'I know not how it comes to pass, the clergy are afraid of him, and so are the Oxford mathematicians and their adherents; wherefore his majesty (Charles II.) was pleased to make a very good comparison when he told me, he was like a bear, whom they baited with dogs to try him.' _Sorbiere's Voyage to England_, p. 40.

[654] This was a common expression for whoever attacked established opinions late in the seventeenth, and even early in the eighteenth century. For instances of it, see _Baxter's Life of Himself_, folio, 1696, part iii. p. 48; _Boyle's Works_, vol. v. pp. 505, 510; _Monk's Life of Bentley_, vol. i. p. 41; _Vernon Correspond._ vol. iii. p. 13; _King's Life of Locke_, vol. i. p. 191; _Brewster's Life of Newton_, vol. ii. p. 149.

[655] Burnet says, they 'made deep and lasting impressions on the king's mind.' _Own Time_, vol. i. p. 172.

[656] A likeness, by Cooper. See _Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses_, edit. Bliss, vol. iii. p. 1208.

[657] _Sorbiere's Voyage to England_, p. 39; _Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses_, vol. iii. p. 1208. On the popularity of the works of Hobbes in the reign of Charles II. compare _Pepys' Diary_, vol. iv. p. 164, with _Lives of the Norths_, vol. iii. p. 339.

If we look for a moment at the ecclesiastical appointments of Charles, we shall find evidence of the same tendency. In his reign, the highest dignities in the church were invariably conferred upon men who were deficient either in ability or in honesty. It would perhaps be an over-refinement to ascribe to the king a deliberate plan for lowering the reputation of the episcopal bench; but it is certain, that if he had such a plan, he followed the course most likely to effect his purpose. For it is no exaggeration to say, that, during his life, the leading English prelates were, without exception, either incapable or insincere; they were unable to defend what they really believed, or else they did not believe what they openly professed. Never before were the interests of the Anglican church so feebly guarded. The first Archbishop of Canterbury appointed by Charles was Juxon, whose deficiencies were notorious; and of whom his friends could only say, that his want of ability was compensated by the goodness of his intentions.[658] When he died, the king raised up as his successor Sheldon, whom he had previously made Bishop of London; and who not only brought discredit on his order by acts of gross intolerance,[659] but who was so regardless of the common decencies of his station, that he used to amuse his associates, by having exhibitions in his own house, imitating the way in which the Presbyterians delivered their sermons.[660] After the death of Sheldon, Charles appointed to the archbishopric Sancroft; whose superstitious fancies exposed him to the contempt even of his own profession, and who was as much despised as Sheldon had been hated.[661] In the rank immediately below this, we find the same principle at work. The three Archbishops of York, during the reign of Charles II., were Frewen, Stearn, and Dolben; who were so utterly devoid of ability, that notwithstanding their elevated position, they are altogether forgotten, not one reader out of a thousand having ever heard their names.[662]

[658] Bishop Burnet says of him, at his appointment: 'As he was never a great divine, so he was now superannuated.' _Own Time_, vol. i. p. 303.

[659] Of which his own friend, Bishop Parker, gives a specimen. See _Parker's History of his own Time_, pp. 31-33. Compare _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. iv. p. 429; _Wilson's Mem. of De Foe_, vol. i. p. 46.

[660] In 1669, Pepys was at one of these entertainments, which took place not only at the house, but in the presence of the archbishop. See the scandalous details in _Pepys' Diary_, vol. iv. pp. 321, 322; or in _Wilson's De Foe_, vol. i. pp. 44, 45.

[661] Burnet, who knew Sancroft, calls him 'a poor-spirited and fearful man' (_Own Time_, vol. iii. p. 354); and mentions (vol. iii. p. 138) an instance of his superstition, which will be easily believed by whoever has read his ridiculous sermons, which D'Oyly has wickedly published. See Appendix to _D'Oyly's Sancroft_, pp. 339-420. Dr. Lake says that everybody was amazed when it was known that Sancroft was to be archbishop. _Lake's Diary_, 30th Dec. 1677, p. 18, in vol. i. of the _Camden Miscellany_, 1847, 4to. His character, so far as he had one, is fairly drawn by Dr. Birch: 'slow, timorous, and narrow-spirited, but at the same time a good, honest, and well-meaning man.' _Birch's Life of Tillotson_, p. 151. See also respecting him, _Macaulay's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. p. 616, vol. iii. p. 77, vol. iv. pp. 40-42.

[662] Frewen was so obscure a man, that there is no life of him either in _Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary_, or in Rose's more recent, but inferior work. The little that is known of Stearn, or Sterne, is unfavourable. Compare _Burnet_, vol. ii. p. 427, with _Baxter's Life of Himself_, folio, 1696, part ii. p. 338. And of Dolben I have been unable to collect anything of interest, except that he had a good library. See the traditionary account in _Jones's Memoirs of Bishop Horne_, p. 66.

Such appointments as these are indeed striking; and what makes them more so, is, that they were by no means necessary; they were not forced on the king by court intrigue, nor was there a lack of more competent men. The truth seems to be, that Charles was unwilling to confer ecclesiastical promotion upon any one who had ability enough to increase the authority of the church, and restore it to its former pre-eminence. At his accession, the two ablest of the clergy were undoubtedly Jeremy Taylor and Isaac Barrow. Both of them were notorious for their loyalty; both of them were men of unspotted virtue; and both of them have left a reputation which will hardly perish while the English language is remembered. But Taylor, though he had married the king's sister,[663] was treated with marked neglect; and, being exiled to an Irish bishopric, had to pass the remainder of his life in what, at that time, was truly called a barbarous country.[664] As to Barrow, who, in point of genius, was probably superior to Taylor,[665] he had the mortification of seeing the most incapable men raised to the highest posts in the church, while he himself was unnoticed; and, notwithstanding that his family had greatly suffered in the royal cause,[666] he received no sort of preferment until five years before his death, when the king conferred on him the mastership of Trinity College, Cambridge.[667]

[663] His wife was Joanna Bridges, a bastard of Charles I. Compare _Notes and Queries_, vol. vii. p. 305, with _Heber's Life of Jeremy Taylor_, in _Taylor's Works_, vol. i. p. xxxiv. Bishop Heber, p. xxxv. adds, 'But, notwithstanding the splendour of such an alliance, there is no reason to believe that it added materially to Taylor's income.'

[664] Coleridge (_Lit. Remains_, vol. iii. p. 208) says, that this neglect of Jeremy Taylor by Charles 'is a problem of which perhaps his virtues present the most probable solution.'

[665] Superior, certainly, in comprehensiveness, and in the range of his studies; so that it is aptly said by a respectable authority, that he was at once 'the great precursor of Sir Isaac Newton, and the pride of the English pulpit.' _Wordsworth's Ecclesiast. Biog._ vol. iv. p. 344. See also, respecting Barrow, _Montucla_, _Hist. des Mathémat._ vol. ii. pp. 88, 89, 359, 360, 504, 505, vol. iii. pp. 436-438.

[666] 'His father having suffered greatly in his estate by his attachment to the royal cause.' _Chalmers's Biog. Dict._ vol. iv. p. 39.

[667] Barrow, displeased at not receiving preferment after the Restoration, wrote the lines:

'Te magis optavit rediturum Carole nemo; Et sensit nemo te rediisse minus.'

_Hamilton's Life of Barrow_, in _Barrow's Works_, Edinb. 1845, vol. i. p. xxiii.

It is hardly necessary to point out how all this must have tended to weaken the church, and accelerate that great movement for which the reign of Charles II. is remarkable.[668] At the same time, there were many other circumstances which, in this preliminary sketch, it is impossible to notice, but which were stamped with the general character of revolt against ancient authority. In a subsequent volume, this will be placed in a still clearer light, because I shall have an opportunity of bringing forward evidence which, from the abundance of its details, would be unsuited to the present Introduction. Enough, however, has been stated, to indicate the general march of the English mind, and supply the reader with a clue by which he may understand those still more complicated events, which, as the seventeenth century advanced, began to thicken upon us.

[668] Everything Mr. Macaulay has said on the contempt into which the clergy fell in the reign of Charles II. is perfectly accurate; and from evidence which I have collected, I know that this very able writer, of whose immense research few people are competent judges, has rather understated the case than overstated it. On several subjects I should venture to differ from Mr. Macaulay; but I cannot refrain from expressing my admiration of his unwearied diligence, of the consummate skill with which he has arranged his materials, and of the noble love of liberty which animates his entire work. These are qualities which will long survive the aspersions of his puny detractors,--men who, in point of knowledge and ability, are unworthy to loosen the shoe-latchet of him they foolishly attack.

A few years before the death of Charles II., the clergy made a great effort to recover their former power by reviving those doctrines of Passive Obedience and Divine Right, which are obviously favourable to the progress of superstition.[669] But as the English intellect was now sufficiently advanced to reject such dogmas, this futile attempt only increased the opposition between the interests of the people as a body, and the interests of the clergy as a class. Scarcely had this scheme been defeated, when the sudden death of Charles placed on the throne a prince whose most earnest desire was to restore the Catholic church, and reinstate among us that mischievous system which openly boasts of subjugating the reason of Man. This change in affairs was, if we consider it in its ultimate results, the most fortunate circumstance which could have happened to our country. In spite of the difference of their religion, the English clergy had always displayed an affection towards James, whose reverence for the priesthood they greatly admired; though they were anxious that the warmth of his affections should be lavished on the Church of England and not on the Church of Rome. They were sensible of the advantages which would accrue to their own order, if his piety could be turned into a new channel.[670] They saw that it was for his interest to abandon his religion; and they thought that to a man so cruel and so vicious, his own interest would be the sole consideration.[671] The consequence was, that in one of the most critical moments of his life, they made in his favour a great and successful effort; and they not only used all their strength to defeat the bill by which it was proposed to exclude him from the succession, but when the measure was rejected, they presented an address to Charles, congratulating him on the result.[672] When James actually mounted the throne, they continued to display the same spirit. Whether they still hoped for his conversion, or whether, in their eagerness to persecute the dissenters, they overlooked the danger to their own church, is uncertain; but it is one of the most singular and unquestionable facts in our history, that for some time there existed a strict alliance between a Protestant hierarchy and a Popish king.[673] The terrible crimes which were the result of this compact are but too notorious. But what is more worthy of attention is, the circumstance that caused the dissolution of this conspiracy between the crown and the church. The ground of the quarrel was an attempt made by the king to effect, in some degree, a religious toleration. By the celebrated Test and Corporation Acts, it had been ordered, that all persons who were employed by government should be compelled, under a heavy penalty, to receive the sacrament according to the rites of the English church. The offence of James was, that he now issued what was called a Declaration of Indulgence, in which he announced his intention of suspending the execution of these laws.[674] From this moment, the position of the two great parties was entirely changed. The bishops clearly perceived that the statutes which it was thus attempted to abrogate, were highly favourable to their own power; and hence, in their opinion, formed an essential part of the constitution of a Christian country. They had willingly combined with James, while he assisted them in persecuting men who worshipped God in a manner different from themselves.[675] So long as this compact held good, they were indifferent as to matters which they considered to be of minor importance. They looked on in silence, while the king was amassing the materials with which he hoped to turn a free government into an absolute monarchy.[676] They saw Jeffreys and Kirke torturing their fellow-subjects; they saw the gaols crowded with prisoners, and the scaffold streaming with blood.[677] They were well pleased that some of the best and ablest men in the kingdom should be barbarously persecuted; that Baxter should be thrown into prison, and that Howe should be forced into exile. They witnessed with composure the most revolting cruelties, because the victims of them were the opponents of the English church. Although the minds of men were filled with terror and with loathing, the bishops made no complaint. They preserved their loyalty unimpaired, and insisted on the necessity of humble submission to the Lord's anointed.[678] But the moment James proposed to protect against persecution those who were hostile to the church; the moment he announced his intention of breaking down that monopoly of offices and of honours which the bishops had long secured for their own party;--the moment this took place, the hierarchy became alive to the dangers with which the country was threatened from the violence of so arbitrary a prince.[679] The king had laid his hand on the ark, and the guardians of the temple flew to arms. How could they tolerate a prince who would not allow them to persecute their enemies? How could they support a sovereign who sought to favour those who differed from the national church? They soon determined on the line of conduct it behoved them to take. With an almost unanimous voice, they refused to obey the order by which the king commanded them to read in their churches the edict for religious toleration.[680] Nor did they stop there. So great was their enmity against him they had recently cherished, that they actually applied for aid to those very dissenters whom, only a few weeks before, they had hotly persecuted; seeking by magnificent promises to win over to their side men they had hitherto hunted even to the death.[681] The most eminent of the Nonconformists were far from being duped by this sudden affection.[682] But their hatred of Popery, and their fear of the ulterior designs of the king, prevailed over every other consideration; and there arose that singular combination between churchmen and dissenters, which has never since been repeated. This coalition, backed by the general voice of the people, soon overturned the throne, and gave rise to what is justly deemed one of the most important events in the history of England.

[669] _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. pp. 142, 143, 153-156; from which it appears that this movement began about 1681. The clergy, as a body, are naturally favourable to this doctrine; and the following passage, published only twelve years ago, will give the reader an idea of the views that some of them entertain. The Rev. Mr. Sewell (_Christian Politics_, Lond. 1844, p. 157) says, that the reigning prince is 'a being armed with supreme physical power by the hand and permission of Providence; as such, the lord of our property, the master of our lives, the fountain of honour, the dispenser of law, before whom each subject must surrender his will and conform his actions.... Who, when he errs, errs as a man, and not as a king, and is responsible, not to man, but to God.' And at p. 111, the same writer informs us that the church, 'with one uniform, unhesitating voice, has proclaimed the duty of "passive obedience."' See also on this slavish tenet, as upheld by the church, _Wordsworth's Ecclesiast. Biog._ vol. iv. p. 668; _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. ii. p. 523; _Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation_, p. 228; _Lathbury's Nonjurors_, pp. 50, 135, 197; and a letter from Nelson, author of the _Fasts and Festivals_, in _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iv. p. 216. With good reason, therefore, did Fox tell the House of Commons, that 'by being a good churchman, a person might become a bad citizen.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxix. p. 1377.

[670] The Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1678, was engaged in an attempt to convert James; and in a letter to the Bishop of Winchester, he notices the 'happy consequences' which would result from his success. See this characteristic letter in _Clarendon Corresp._ vol. ii. pp. 465, 466. See also the motives of the bishops, candidly but broadly stated, in Mr. Wilson's valuable work, _Life of De Foe_, vol. i. p. 74.

[671] In a high-church pamphlet, published in 1682, against the Bill of Exclusion, the cause of James is advocated; but the inconvenience he would suffer by remaining a Catholic is strongly insisted upon. See the wily remarks in _Somers Tracts_, vol. viii. pp. 258, 259.

[672] _Wordsworth's Ecclesiast. Biog._ vol. iv. p. 665. On their eagerness against the bill, see _Harris's Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. v. p. 181; _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. ii. p. 246; _Somers Tracts_, vol. x. pp. 216, 253; _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iii. p. 353; _Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of England_, vol. ii. p. 431.

[673] At the accession of James II. 'the pulpits throughout England resounded with thanksgivings; and a numerous set of addresses flattered his Majesty, in the strongest expressions, with assurances of unshaken loyalty and obedience, without limitation or reserve.' _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. p. 2. See also _Calamy's Life_, vol. i. p. 118.

[674] On the 18th March, 1687, the king announced to the Privy Council that he had determined 'to grant, by his own authority, entire liberty of conscience to all his subjects. On the 4th April appeared the memorable Declaration of Indulgence.' _Macaulay's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. p. 211; and see _Life of James II._, edited by Clarke, vol. ii, p. 112. There is a summary of the Declaration in _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. pp. 30, 31. As to the second Declaration, see _Macaulay_, vol. ii. pp. 344, 345; _Clarendon Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 170.

[675] It was in the autumn of 1685, that the clergy and the government persecuted the dissenters with the greatest virulence. See _Macaulay's Hist._ vol. i. pp. 667, 668. Compare _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. pp. 4-12, with a letter from Lord Clarendon, dated 21st December 1685, in _Clarendon Correspond._ vol. i. p. 192. It is said (_Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iii. pp. 175, 176), that on many occasions the church party made use of the ecclesiastical courts to extort money from the Nonconformists; and for confirmation of this, see _Mackintosh's Revolution of 1688_, pp. 173, 640.

[676] It appears from the accounts in the War Office, that James, even in the first year of his reign, had a standing army of nearly 20,000 men. _Mackintosh's Revolution_, pp. 3, 77, 688: 'A disciplined army of about 20,000 men was, for the first time, established during peace in this island.' As this naturally inspired great alarm, the king gave out that the number did not exceed 15,000. _Life of James II._, edited by Clarke, vol. ii. pp. 52, 57.

[677] Compare _Burnet_, vol. iii. pp. 55-62, with _Dalrymple's Memoirs_, vol. i. part i. book ii. pp. 198-203. Ken, so far as I remember, was the only one who set his face against these atrocities. He was a very humane man, and did what he could to mitigate the sufferings of the prisoners in Monmouth's rebellion; but it is not mentioned that he attempted to stop the persecutions directed against the innocent Nonconformists, who were barbarously punished, not because they rebelled, but because they dissented. _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. i. p. 298.

[678] 'From the conduct of the clergy in this and the former reign, it is quite clear, that if the king had been a Protestant, of the profession of the Church of England, or even a quiet, submissive Catholic, without any zeal for his religion,--confining himself solely to matters of state, and having a proper respect for church property,--he might have plundered other Protestants at his pleasure, and have trampled upon the liberties of his country, without the danger of resistance.' _Wilson's Life of De Foe_, vol. i. p. 136. Or, as Fox says, 'Thus, as long as James contented himself with absolute power in civil matters, and did not make use of his authority against the church, everything went smooth and easy.' _Fox's Hist. of James II._, p. 165.

[679] Compare _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. p. 58, with _Life of James II._, edit. Clarke, vol. ii. p. 70; where it is well said, that the clergy of the Church of England 'had preached prerogative and the sovereign power to the highest pitch, while it was favourable to them; but when they apprehended the least danger from it, they cried out as soon as the shoe pinched, though it was of their own putting on.' See also pp. 113, 164. What their servility was to the crown, while they thought that the crown was with them, may be estimated from the statement of De Foe: 'I have heard it publicly preached, that if the king commanded my head, and sent his messengers to fetch it, I was bound to submit, and stand while it was cut off.' _Wilson's Life of De Foe_, vol. i. p. 118.

[680] D'Oyly (_Life of Sancroft_, p. 164) says, 'On the whole, it is supposed that not more than 200 out of the whole body of clergy, estimated at 10,000, complied with the king's requisition.' 'Only seven obeyed in the city of London, and not above 200 all England over.' _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iii. p. 218. On Sunday, 20th May 1688, Lord Clarendon writes: 'I was at St. James's church; in the evening I had an account that the Declaration was read only in four churches in the city and liberties.' _Clarendon Corresp._ vol. ii. pp. 172, 173. When this conduct became known, it was observed that the church 'supported the crown only so long as she dictated to it; and became rebellious at the moment when she was forbidden to be intolerant.' _Mackintosh's Revolution of 1688_, p. 255.

[681] The first advances were made when the Declaration of the king in favour of 'liberty of conscience' was on the point of being issued, and immediately after the proceedings at Oxford had shown his determination to break down the monopoly of offices possessed by the church. 'The clergy at the same time prayed and entreated the dissenters to appear on their side, and stand by the Establishment, making large promises of favour and brotherly affection if ever they came into power.' _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. p. 29. See also, at pp. 58, 59, the conciliating letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury after the Declaration. 'Such,' says Neal, 'such was the language of the church in distress!' Compare _Birch's Life of Tillotson_, p. 153; _Ellis's Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 63; _Ellis's Orig. Letters_, 2nd series, vol. iv. p. 117; _Mackintosh's Revolution_, p. 286; _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. p. 132; _Macaulay's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. pp. 218, 219.

[682] See the indignant language of De Foe _Wilson's Life of De Foe_, vol. i. pp. 130, 131, 133, 134; and a _Letter from a Dissenter to the Petitioning Bishops_, in _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. pp. 117, 118. The writer says: 'Pray, my lords, let me ask you a question. Suppose the king, instead of his Declaration, had issued out a proclamation, commanding justices of the peace, constables, informers, and all other persons, to be more rigorous, if possible, against dissenters, and do their utmost to the perfect quelling and destroying them; and had ordered this to be read in your churches in the time of divine service,--would you have made any scruple of that?'

Thus it was, that the proximate cause of that great revolution which cost James his crown, was the publication by the king of an edict of religious toleration, and the consequent indignation of the clergy at seeing so audacious an act performed by a Christian prince. It is true, that if other things had not conspired, this alone could never have effected so great a change. But it was the immediate cause of it, because it was the cause of the schism between the church and the throne, and of the alliance between the church and the dissenters. This is a fact never to be forgotten. We ought never to forget, that the first and only time the Church of England has made war upon the crown, was when the crown had declared its intention of tolerating, and in some degree protecting, the rival religions of the country.[683] There is no doubt that the Declaration which was then issued was illegal, and that it was conceived in an insidious spirit. But declarations equally illegal, equally insidious, and much more tyrannical, had on other occasions been made by the sovereign, without exciting the anger of the clergy.[684] These are things which it is good for us to ponder. These are lessons of inestimable value for those to whom it is given, not, indeed, to direct, but in some degree to modify, the march of public opinion. As to the people in general, it is impossible for them to exaggerate the obligations which they and all of us owe to the Revolution of 1688. But let them take heed that superstition does not mingle with their gratitude. Let them admire that majestic edifice of national liberty, which stands alone in Europe like a beacon in the midst of the waters; but let them not think that they owe anything to men who, in contributing to its erection, sought the gratification of their own selfishness, and the consolidation of that spiritual power which by it they fondly hoped to secure.

[683] That this was the immediate cause, so far as the head of the church-party was concerned, is unblushingly avowed by the biographer and defender of the then Archbishop of Canterbury. 'The order published from the king in council, May 4th, 1688, directing the archbishops and bishops to send to the clergy in their respective dioceses the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience, to be publicly read in all the churches of the kingdom, made it impossible for the Archbishop of Canterbury to abstain any longer from engaging in an open and declared opposition to the counsels under which the king was now unhappily acting.' _D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft_, p. 151.

[684] Some writers have attempted to defend the clergy, on the ground that they thought it illegal to publish a declaration of this kind. But such a defence is incompatible with their doctrine of passive obedience; and besides this, it was contradicted by precedents and decisions of their own. Jeremy Taylor, in his _Ductor Dubitantium_, their great work of authority, asserts that 'the unlawful proclamations and edicts of a true prince may be published by the clergy in their several charges.' _Heber's Life of Taylor_, p. cclxxxvi. Heber adds: 'I wish I had not found this in Taylor; and I thank Heaven that the principle was not adopted by the English clergy in 1687.' But why was it not adopted in 1687? Simply because in 1687 the king attacked the monopoly enjoyed by the clergy; and therefore the clergy forgot their principle, that they might smite their enemy. And what makes the motives of this change still more palpable is, that as late as 1681, the Archbishop of Canterbury caused the clergy to read a Declaration issued by Charles II.; and that in a revised copy of the Liturgy he had also added to the rubric to the same effect. See _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. p. 56. Compare _Calamy's Own Life_, vol. i. pp. 199, 200; _Mackintosh's Revolution_, pp. 242, 243; _D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft_, p. 152; _King's Life of Locke_, vol. i. p. 259; _Life of James II._, edit. Clarke, vol. ii. p. 156.

It is, indeed, difficult to conceive the full amount of the impetus given to English civilization by the expulsion of the House of Stuart. Among the most immediate results, may be mentioned the limits that were set to the royal prerogative;[685] the important steps that were taken towards religious toleration;[686] the remarkable and permanent improvement in the administration of justice;[687] the final abolition of a censorship over the press;[688] and, what has not excited sufficient attention, the rapid growth, of those great monetary interests by which, as we shall hereafter see, the prejudices of the superstitious classes have in no small degree been counterbalanced.[689] These are the main characteristics of the reign of William III.; a reign often aspersed, and little understood,[690] but of which it may be truly said, that, taking its difficulties into due consideration, it is the most successful and the most splendid recorded in the history of any country. But these topics rather belong to the subsequent volumes of this work; and at present we are only concerned in tracing the effects of the Revolution upon that ecclesiastical power by which it was immediately brought about.

[685] They are summed up in a popular pamphlet ascribed to Lord Somers, and printed in _Somers Tracts_, vol. x. pp. 263, 264. The diminished respect felt for the crown after 1688 is judiciously noticed in _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. i. p. 9.

[686] The Toleration Act was passed in 1689. A copy of it is given by the historians of the dissenters, who call it their Magna Charta. See _Bogue and Bennett's History of the Dissenters_, vol. i. pp. 187-198. The historian of the Catholics equally allows that the reign of William III. is 'the era from which their enjoyment of religious toleration may be dated.' _Butler's Memoirs of the Catholics_, vol. iii. pp. 122, 139. This is said by Mr. Butler in regard, not to the Protestant dissenters, but to the Catholics; so that we have the admission of both parties as to the importance of this epoch. Even the shameful act forced upon William in 1700 was, as Mr. Hallam truly says, evaded in its worst provisions. _Const. Hist._ vol. ii. pp. 332, 333.

[687] _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iv. pp. 102, 355, and his _Chief-Justices_, vol. ii. pp. 95, 116, 118, 136, 142, 143. See also _Barrington's Observations on the Statutes_, pp. 23, 102, 558; and even _Alison's Hist. of Europe_, vol. i. p. 236, vol. ix. p. 243; an unwary concession from such an enemy to popular liberty.

[688] This was effected before the end of the seventeenth century. See _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iv. pp. 121, 122. Compare Lord Camden on Literary Property, in _Parl. Hist._ vol. xvii. p. 994; _Hunt's History of Newspapers_, vol. i. pp. 161, 162; _Somers Tracts_, vol. xiii. p. 555; and a more detailed account in _Macaulay's Hist. of England_, vol. iv. pp. 348 seq. 540 seq.; though Mr. Macaulay in ascribing, p. 353, so much to the influence of Blount, has not, I think, sufficiently dwelt on the operation of larger and more general causes.

[689] Mr. Cooke (_Hist. of Party_, vol. ii. pp. 5, 148) notices this remarkable rise of the monied classes early in the eighteenth century; but he merely observes, that the consequence was to strengthen the Whig party. Though this is undoubtedly true, the ultimate results, as I shall hereafter point out, were far more important than any political or even economical consequences. It was not till 1694 that the Bank of England was established; and this great institution at first met with the warmest opposition from the admirers of old times, who thought it must be useless because their ancestors did without it. See the curious details in _Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue_, vol. iii. pp. 6-9; and on the connexion between it and the Whigs, see _Macaulay's Hist. of England_, vol. iv. p. 502. There is a short account of its origin and progress in _Smith's Wealth of Nations_, book ii. chap. ii. p. 130.

[690] Frequently misunderstood, even by those who praise it. Thus, for instance, a living writer informs us that, 'great as have been the obligations which England owes, in many different views, to the Revolution, it is beyond all question the greatest, that it brought in a sovereign instructed in the art of overcoming the ignorant impatience of taxation which is the invariable characteristic of free communities; and thus gave it a government capable of turning to the best account the activity and energy of its inhabitants, at the same time that it had the means given it of maintaining their independence.' _Alison's Hist. of Europe_, vol. vii. p. 5. This, I should suppose, is the most eccentric eulogy ever passed on William III.

Scarcely had the clergy succeeded in expelling James, when the greater number of them repented of their own act.[691] Indeed, even before he was driven from the country, several things had occurred to make them doubt the policy of the course they were pursuing. During the last few weeks that he was allowed to reign, he had shown symptoms of increasing respect for the English hierarchy. The archbishopric of York had so long been vacant, as to cause a belief that it was the intention of the crown either to appoint to it a Catholic, or else to seize its revenues.[692] But James, to the delight of the church, now filled up this important office by nominating Lamplugh, who was well known to be a stanch churchman and a zealous defender of episcopal privileges.[693] Just before this, the king also rescinded the order by which the Bishop of London had been suspended from the exercise of his functions.[694] To the bishops in general he made great promises of future favour;[695] some of them, it was said, were to be called to his privy council; and, in the meantime, he cancelled that ecclesiastical commission which, by limiting their power, had excited their anger.[696] Besides this, there occurred some other circumstances which the clergy now had to consider. It was rumoured, and it was generally believed, that William was no great admirer of ecclesiastical establishments; and that, being a friend to toleration, he was more likely to diminish the power than increase the privileges of the English hierarchy.[697] It was also known that he favoured the Presbyterians, whom the Church not unreasonably regarded as her bitterest enemies.[698] And when, in addition to all this, William, on mere grounds of expediency, actually abolished episcopacy in Scotland, it became evident that, by thus repudiating the doctrine of divine right, he had directed a great blow against those opinions on which, in England, ecclesiastical authority was based.[699]

[691] On their sudden repentance, and on the causes of it, see _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. p. 71.

[692] _Mackintosh's Revolution of 1688_, pp. 81, 191. After the death of Archbishop Dolben, 'the see was kept vacant for more than two years,' and Cartwright hoped to obtain it. See _Cartwright's Diary_, by Hunter, 4to, 1843, p. 45. In the same way, we find from a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury (_Clarendon Corresp._ vol. i. p. 409) that in May 1686 uneasiness was felt because the Irish bishoprics were not filled up. Compare _Burnet_, vol. iii. p. 103. Carwithen (_Hist. of the Ch. of England_, vol. ii. p. 492) says, that James had intended to raise the Jesuit Petre to the archbishopric.

[693] Lamplugh was translated from the bishopric of Exeter to the archbishopric of York in November 1688. See the contemporary account in the _Ellis Correspondence_, vol. ii. p. 303, and _Ellis's Original Letters_, second series, vol. iv. p. 151. He was a most orthodox man; and not only hated the dissenters, but showed his zeal by persecuting them. _Wilson's Life of De Foe_, vol. i. pp. 94, 95. Compare an anecdote of him in _Baxter's Life of Himself_, folio, 1696, part iii. pp. 178, 179.

[694] In a letter, dated London, 29th September 1688 (_Ellis_, _Correspondence_, vol. ii. p. 224, and _Ellis's Orig. Letters_, second series, vol. iv. p. 128), it is stated, that the Bishop of London's 'suspension is taken off.' See also _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. p. 215. This is the more observable, because, according to Johnstone, there was an intention, in December 1687, of depriving him. _Mackintosh's Revolution_, pp. 211, 212.

[695] This disposition on the part of the king again to favour the bishops and the church became a matter of common remark in September 1688. See _Ellis Correspond._ vol. ii. pp. 201, 202, 209, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227; _Clarendon Correspond._ vol. ii. pp. 188, 192. Sir John Reresby, who was then in London, writes, in October 1688, that James 'begins again to court the Church of England.' _Reresby's Memoirs_, p. 357. Indeed, the difficulties of James were now becoming so great, that he had hardly any choice.

[696] _Ellis Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 211; _Life of James II._, edit. Clarke, vol. ii. p. 189.

[697] In November 1687, it was said that he wished the dissenters to have 'entire liberty for the full exercise of their religion,' and to be freed 'from the severity of the penal laws.' _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. p. 184. This is the earliest distinct notice I have seen of William's desire to deprive the church of the power of punishing nonconformists; but after he arrived in England his intentions became obvious. In January 1688-9 the friends of the church complained 'that the countenance he gave the dissenters gave too much cause of jealousy to the Church of England.' _Clarendon Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 238. Compare _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. p. 81; _Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters_, vol. ii. p. 318; _Birch's Life of Tillotson_, pp. 156, 157; _Somers Tracts_, vol. x. p. 341, vol. xi. p. 108. Burnet, in his summary of the character of William, observes that, 'his indifference as to the forms of church-government, and his being zealous for toleration, together with his cold behaviour towards the clergy, gave them generally very ill impressions of him.' _Own Time_, vol. iv. p. 550. At p. 192 the bishop says, 'He took no notice of the clergy, and seemed to have little concern in the matters of the church or of religion.'

[698] Sir John Reresby, who was an attentive observer of what was going on, says, 'The prince, upon his arrival, seemed more inclined to the Presbyterians than to the members of the church; which startled the clergy.' _Reresby's Memoirs_, p. 375: see also pp. 399, 405: 'the church-people hated the Dutch, and had rather turn Papists than receive the Presbyterians among them.' Compare _Evelyn's Diary_, vol. iii. p. 281: 'the Presbyterians, our new governors.'

[699] Burnet (_Own Time_, vol. iv. p. 50) says of the clergy in 1689: 'The king was suspected by them, by reason of the favour showed to dissenters; but chiefly for his abolishing episcopacy in Scotland, and his consenting to the setting up presbytery there.' On this great change, compare _Bogue and Bennett's History of Dissenters_, vol. ii. pp. 379-384; _Barry's Hist. of the Orkney Islands_, p. 257; _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. pp. 85, 86: and on the indignation felt by the Anglican clergy at the abolition of episcopacy in Scotland, see a contemporary pamphlet in _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. pp. 510, 516, where fears are expressed lest William should effect a similar measure in England. The writer very fairly observes, p. 522, 'For if we give up the _jus divinum_ of episcopacy in Scotland, we must yield it also as to England. And then we are wholly precarious.' See also vol. x. pp. 341, 503; _Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation_, pp. 277, 278; and _Macpherson's Original Papers_, vol. i. p. 509.

While these things were agitating the public mind, the eyes of men were naturally turned upon the bishops, who, though they had lost much of their former power, were still respected by a large majority of the people as the guardians of the national religion. But at this critical moment they were so blinded, either by their ambition or by their prejudices, that they adopted a course which of all others was the most injurious to their reputation. They made a sudden attempt to reverse that political movement of which they were themselves the principal originators. Their conduct on this occasion amply confirms that account of their motives which I have already given. If, in aiding those preliminary measures by which the Revolution was effected, they had been moved by a desire of relieving the nation from despotism, they would have eagerly welcomed that great man at whose approach the despot took to flight. This is what the clergy would have done, if they had loved their country better than they loved their order. But they pursued a precisely opposite course; because they preferred the petty interests of their own class to the welfare of the great body of the people, and because they would rather that the country should be oppressed than that the church should be humbled. Nearly the whole of the bishops and clergy had, only a few weeks before, braved the anger of their sovereign sooner than read in their churches an edict for religious toleration, and seven of the most influential of the episcopal order had, in the same cause, willingly submitted to the risk of a public trial before the ordinary tribunals of the land. This bold course they professed to have adopted, not because they disliked toleration, but because they hated tyranny. And yet when William arrived in England, and when James stole away from the kingdom like a thief in the night, this same ecclesiastical profession pressed forward to reject that great man, who, without striking a blow, had by his mere presence saved the country from the slavery with which it was threatened. We shall not easily find in modern history another instance of such gross inconsistency, or rather, let us say, of such selfish and reckless ambition. For this change of plan, far from being concealed, was so openly displayed, and the causes of it were so obvious, that the scandal was laid bare before the whole country. Within the space of a few weeks the apostasy was consummated. The first in the field was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, anxious to retain his office, had promised to wait upon William. But when he saw the direction things were likely to take, he withdrew his promise, and would not recognize a prince who showed such indifference to the sacred order.[700] Indeed, so great was his anger, that he sharply rebuked his chaplain for presuming to pray for William and Mary, although they had been proclaimed with the full consent of the nation, and although the crown had been delivered to them by the solemn and deliberate act of a public convention of the estates of the realm.[701] While such was the conduct of the primate of England, his brethren were not wanting to him in this great emergency of their common fate. The oath of allegiance was refused not only by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but also by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, by the Bishop of Chester, by the Bishop of Chichester, by the Bishop of Ely, by the Bishop of Gloucester, by the Bishop of Norwich, by the Bishop of Peterborough, and by the Bishop of Worcester.[702] As to the inferior clergy, our information is less precise; but it is said that about six hundred of them imitated their superiors in declining to recognize for their king him whom the country had elected.[703] The other members of this turbulent faction were unwilling, by so bold a measure, to incur that deprivation of their livings with which William would probably have visited them. They, therefore, preferred a safer and more inglorious opposition, by which they could embarrass the government without injuring themselves, and could gain the reputation of orthodoxy without incurring the pains of martyrdom.

[700] _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iii. p. 340. Burnet, who had the best means of information, says, 'Though he had once agreed to it, yet would not come.' Lord Clarendon, in his _Diary_, 3rd January 1688-9, writes, that the archbishop expressed to him on that day his determination neither to call on William nor even to send to him (_Clarendon Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 240); and this resolution appears to have been taken deliberately: 'he was careful not to do it, for the reasons he formerly gave me.'

[701] See the account given by his chaplain Wharton, in _D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft_, p. 259, where it is stated that the archbishop was very irate ('vehementer excandescens'), and told him, 'that he must thenceforward desist from offering prayers for the new king and queen, or else from performing the duties of his chapel.' See also _Birch's Life of Tillotson_, p. 144. Thus too the Bishop of Norwich declared 'that he would not pray for King William and Queen Mary.' _Clarendon Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 263. The same spirit was universal among the high-church clergy; and when public prayers were offered up for the king and queen, they were called by the nonjurors 'the immoral prayers,' and this became a technical and recognized expression. _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. ii. pp. 648, 650.

[702] _Lathbury's Hist. of the Nonjurors_, p. 45; _D'Oyly's Sancroft_, p. 260.

[703] Nairne's Papers mention, in 1693, 'six hundred ministers who have not taken the oaths.' _Macpherson's Orig. Papers_, vol. i. p. 459.

The effect which all this produced on the temper of the nation may be easily imagined. The question was now narrowed to an issue which every plain man could at once understand. On the one side, there was an overwhelming majority of the clergy.[704] On the other side there was all the intellect of England, and all her dearest interests. The mere fact that such an opposition could exist without kindling a civil war, showed how the growing intelligence of the people had weakened the authority of the ecclesiastical profession. Besides this, the opposition was not only futile, but it was also injurious to the class that made it.[705] For it was now seen that the clergy only cared for the people as long as the people cared for them. The violence with which these angry men[706] set themselves against the interests of the nation clearly proved the selfishness of that zeal against James, of which they had formerly made so great a merit. They continued to hope for his return, to intrigue for him, and in some instances to correspond with him; although they well knew that his presence would cause a civil war, and that he was so generally hated that he dared not show his face in England unless protected by the troops of a foreign and hostile power.[707]

[704] The only friends William possessed among the clergy were the low-churchmen, as they were afterwards called; and it is supposed that they formed barely a tenth of the entire body in 1689: 'We should probably overrate their numerical strength, if we were to estimate them at a tenth part of the priesthood.' _Macaulay's Hist. of England_, vol. iii. p. 74.

[705] The earliest allusion I have seen to the injury the clergy were inflicting on the church, by their conduct after the arrival of William, is in _Evelyn's Diary_, vol. iii. p. 273,--a curious passage, gently hinting at the 'wonder of many,' at the behaviour of 'the Archbishop of Canterbury, and some of the rest.' With Evelyn, who loved the church, this was an unpleasant subject; but others were less scrupulous; and in parliament, in particular, men did not refrain from expressing what must have been the sentiments of every impartial observer. In the celebrated debate, in January 1688-9, when the throne was declared vacant, Pollexfen said: 'Some of the clergy are for one thing, some for another; I think they scarce know what they would have.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. v. p. 55. In February, Maynard, one of the most influential members, indignantly said: 'I think the clergy are out of their wits; and I believe, if the clergy should have their wills, few or none of us should be here again.' _Ibid._ vol. v. p. 129. The clergy were themselves bitterly sensible of the general hostility; and one of them writes, in 1694: 'The people of England, who were so excessively enamoured of us when the bishops were in the tower, that they hardly forbore to worship us, are now, I wish I could say but cool and very indifferent towards us.' _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. p. 525. The growing indignation against the clergy, caused by their obvious desire to sacrifice the country to the interests of the church, is strikingly displayed in a letter from Sir Roland Gwyne, written in 1710, and printed in _Macpherson's Orig. Papers_, vol. ii. p. 207.

[706] They are so called by Burnet: 'these angry men, that had raised this flame in the church.' _Own Time_, vol. v. p. 17.

[707] Indeed, the high-church party, in their publications, distinctly intimated, that if James were not recalled, he should be reinstated by a foreign army. _Somers Tracts_, vol. x. pp. 377, 405, 457, 462. Compare _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. p. 138. Burnet (_Own Time_, vol. iv. pp. 361, 362) says, they were 'confounded' when they heard of the peace of 1697; and Calamy (_Life of Himself_, vol. ii. p. 322) makes the same remark on the death of Louis XIV.: 'It very much puzzled the counsels of the Jacobites, and spoiled their projects.'

But this was not the whole of the damage which, in those anxious times, the church inflicted upon herself. When the bishops refused to take the oaths to the new government, measures were adopted to remove them from their sees; and William did not hesitate to eject by force of law the Archbishop of Canterbury and five of his brethren.[708] The prelates, smarting under the insult, were goaded into measures of unusual activity. They loudly proclaimed that the powers of the church, which had long been waning, were now extinct.[709] They denied the right of the legislature to pass a law against them. They denied the right of the sovereign to put that law into execution.[710] They not only continued to give themselves the title of bishops, but they made arrangements to perpetuate the schism which their own violence had created. The Archbishop of Canterbury, as he insisted upon being called, made a formal renunciation of his imaginary right into the hands of Lloyd,[711] who still supposed himself to be Bishop of Norwich, although William had recently expelled him from his see. The scheme of these turbulent priests was then communicated to James, who willingly supported their plan for establishing a permanent feud in the English church.[712] The result of this conspiracy between the rebellious prelates and the pretended king, was the appointment of a series of men who gave themselves out as forming the real episcopacy, and who received the homage of every one who preferred the claims of the church to the authority of the state.[713] This mock succession of imaginary bishops continued for more than a century;[714] and, by dividing the allegiance of churchmen, lessened the power of the church.[715] In several instances, the unseemly spectacle was exhibited of two bishops for the same place; one nominated by the spiritual power, the other nominated by the temporal power. Those who considered the church as superior to the state, of course attached themselves to the spurious bishops; while the appointments of William were acknowledged by that rapidly increasing party, who preferred secular advantages to ecclesiastical theories.[716]

[708] _D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft_, p. 266; _Wordsworth's Eccl. Biog._ iv. p. 683.

[709] Sancroft, on his death-bed, in 1693, prayed for the 'poor suffering church, which, by this revolution, is almost destroyed.' _D'Oyly's Sancroft_, p. 311; and _Macpherson's Original Papers_, vol. i. p. 280. See also _Remarks_, published in 1693 (_Somers Tracts_, vol. x. p. 504) where it is said, that William had, 'as far as possible he could, dissolved the true old Church of England;' and that, 'in a moment of time, her face was so altered, as scarce to be known again.'

[710] 'Ken, though deprived, never admitted in the secular power the right of deprivation; and it is well known that he studiously retained his title.' _Bowles's Life of Ken_, vol. ii. p. 225. Thus, too, Lloyd, so late as 1703, signs himself, 'Wm. Nor.' (_Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. ii. p. 720); though, having been legally deprived, he was no more bishop of Norwich than he was emperor of China. And Sancroft, in the last of his letters, published by D'Oyly (_Life_, p. 303), signs 'W. C.'

[711] The strange document, by which he appointed Dr. Lloyd his vicar-general, is printed in Latin, in _D'Oyly's Sancroft_, p. 295, and in English, in _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. ii. p. 640.

[712] _Lathbury's Hist. of the Nonjurors_, p. 96; _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. ii. pp. 641, 642.

[713] The struggle between James and William was essentially a struggle between ecclesiastical interests and secular interests; and this was seen as early as 1689, when, as we learn from Burnet, who was much more a politician than a priest, 'the church was as the word given out by the Jacobite party, under which they might more safely shelter themselves,' _Own Time_, vol. iv. p. 57. See also, on this identification of the Jacobites with the church, _Birch's Life of Tillotson_, p. 222; and the argument of Dodwell, pp. 246, 247, in 1691. Dodwell justly observed, that the successors of the deprived bishops were schismatical, in a spiritual point of view; and that, 'if they should pretend to lay authority as sufficient, they would overthrow the being of a church as a society.' The bishops appointed by William were evidently intruders, according to church principles; and as their intrusion could only be justified according to lay principles, it followed that the success of the intrusion was the triumph of lay principles over church ones. Hence it is, that the fundamental idea of the rebellion of 1688, is the elevation of the state above the church; just as the fundamental idea of the rebellion of 1642, is the elevation of the commons above the crown.

[714] According to Dr. D'Oyly (_Life of Sancroft_, p. 297), Dr. Gordon 'died in London, November 1779, and is supposed to have been the last nonjuring bishop.' In _Short's Hist. of the Church of England_, p. 583, Lond. 1847, it is also stated, that 'this schism continued till 1779.' But Mr. Hallam (_Const. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 404) has pointed out a passage in the _State Trials_, which proves that another of the bishops, named Cartwright, was still living at Shrewsbury in 1793; and Mr. Lathbury (_Hist. of the Nonjurors_, Lond. 1845, p. 412) says, that he died in 1799.

[715] Calamy (_Own Life_, vol. i. pp. 328-330, vol. ii. pp. 338, 357, 358) gives an interesting account of these feuds within the church, consequent upon the revolution. Indeed, their bitterness was such, that it was necessary to coin names for the two parties; and, between 1700 and 1702, we, for the first time, hear the expressions, high-church and low-church. See _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iv. p. 447, vol. v. p. 70. Compare _Wilson's Life of De Foe_, vol. ii. p. 26; _Parl. Hist._ vol. vi. pp. 162, 498. On the difference between them, as it was understood in the reign of Anne, see _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 532, and _Macpherson's Orig. Papers_, vol. ii. p. 166. On the dawning schism in the church, see the speech of Sir T. Littleton, in 1690, _Parl. Hist._ vol. v. p. 593. Hence many complained that they could not tell which was the real church. See curious evidence of this perplexity in _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. pp. 477-481.

[716] The alternative is fairly stated in a letter written in 1691 (_Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. ii. p. 599): 'If the deprived bishop be the only lawful bishop, then the people and clergy of his diocese are bound to own him, and no other; then all the bishops who own the authority of a new archbishop, and live in communion with him, are schismatics; and the clergy who live in communion with schismatical bishops are schismatics themselves; and the whole Church of England now established by law is schismatical.'

Such were some of the events which, at the end of the seventeenth century, widened the breach that had long existed between the interests of the nation and the interests of the clergy.[717] There was also another circumstance which considerably increased this alienation. Many of the English clergy, though they retained their affection for James, did not choose to brave the anger of the government, or risk the loss of their livings. To avoid this, and to reconcile their conscience with their interest, they availed themselves of a supposed distinction between a king by right and a king in possession.[718] The consequence was, that while with their lips they took an oath of allegiance to William, they in their hearts paid homage to James; and, while they prayed for one king in their churches, they were bound to pray for another in their closets.[719] By this wretched subterfuge, a large body of the clergy were at once turned into concealed rebels; and we have it on the authority of a contemporary bishop, that the prevarication of which these men were notoriously guilty was a still further aid to that scepticism, the progress of which he bitterly deplores.[720]

[717] Lord Mahon (_Hist. of England_, vol. ii. p. 245) notices, what he terms, the 'unnatural alienation between the church and state,' consequent upon the Revolution of 1688: and on the diminished power of the church caused by the same event, see _Phillimore's Mem. of Lyttleton_, vol. i. p. 352.

[718] The old absurdity of _de facto_ and _de jure_; as if any man could retain a right to a throne which the people would not allow him to occupy!

[719] In 1715, Leslie, by far the ablest of them, thus states their position: 'You are now driven to this dilemma,--swear, or swear not; if you swear, you kill the soul; and if you swear not, you kill the body, in the loss of your bread.' _Somers Tracts_, vol. xiii. p. 686. The result of the dilemma was what might have been expected; and a high-church writer, in the reign of William III., boasts (_Somers Tracts_, vol. x. p. 344) that the oaths taken by the clergy were no protection to the government: 'not that the government receives any security from oaths.' Whiston, too, says in his _Memoirs_, p. 30: 'Yet do I too well remember that the far greatest part of those of the university and clergy that then took the oaths to the government, seemed to me to take them with a doubtful conscience, if not against its dictates.' This was in 1693; and, in 1710, we find: 'There are now circumstances to make us believe that the Jacobite clergy have the like instructions to take any oaths, to get possession of a pulpit for the service of the cause, to bellow out the hereditary right, the pretended title of the Pretender.' _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 641. A knowledge of this fact, or, at all events, a belief of it, was soon diffused; and, eight years later, the celebrated Lord. Cowper, then lord chancellor, said, in the House of Lords, 'that his majesty had also the best part of the landed, and all the trading interest; _that as to the clergy, he would say nothing--but that it was notorious that the majority of the populace had been poisoned, and that the poison was not yet quite expelled_.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. vii. p. 541; also given, but not quite _verbatim_, in _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iv. p. 365.

[720] 'The prevarication of too many in so sacred a matter contributed not a little to fortify the growing atheism of the present age.' _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iii. p. 381. See also, to the same effect, vol. iv. pp. 176, 177; and a remarkable passage in _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 573. I need hardly add, that it was then usual to confuse scepticism with atheism; though the two things are not only different, but incompatible. In regard to the quibble respecting _de facto_ and _de jure_, and the use made of it by the clergy, the reader should compare _Wilson's Mem. of De Foe_, vol. i. pp. 171, 172; _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. p. 531; _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iv. p. 409; and a letter from the Rev. Francis Jessop, written in 1717, in _Nichols's Lit. Illustrations_, vol. iv. pp. 120-123.

As the eighteenth century advanced, the great movement of liberation rapidly proceeded. One of the most important of the ecclesiastical resources had formerly been Convocation; in which the clergy, by meeting in a body, were able to discountenance in an imposing manner whatever might be hostile to the church; and had, moreover, an opportunity, which they sedulously employed, of devising schemes favourable to the spiritual authority.[721] But, in the progress of the age, this weapon also was taken from them. Within a very few years after the Revolution, Convocation fell into general contempt;[722] and, in 1717, this celebrated assembly was finally prorogued by an act of the crown, it being justly considered that the country had no further occasion for its services.[723] Since that period, this great council of the English church has never been allowed to meet for the purpose of deliberating on its own affairs, until a few years ago, when, by the connivance of a feeble government, it was permitted to reassemble. So marked, however, has been the change in the temper of the nation, that this once formidable body does not now retain even a semblance of its ancient influence; its resolutions are no longer feared, its discussions are no longer studied; and the business of the country continues to be conducted without regard to those interests which, only a few generations ago, were considered by every statesman to be of supreme importance.[724]

[721] Among which must be particularly mentioned the practice of censuring all books that encouraged free inquiry. In this respect, the clergy were extremely mischievous. See _Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation_, pp. 124, 286, 338, 351; and _Wilson's Life of De Foe_, vol. ii. p. 170.

[722] In 1704, Burnet (_Own Time_, vol. v. p. 138) says of Convocation, 'but little opposition was made to them, as very little regard was had to them.' In 1700, there was a squabble between the upper and lower house of Convocation for Canterbury; which, no doubt, aided these feelings. See _Life of Archbishop Sharp_, edited by Newcome, vol. i. p. 348, where this wretched feud is related with great gravity.

[723] Charles Butler (_Reminiscences_, vol. ii. p. 95) says, that the final prorogation was in 1720; but, according to all the other authorities I have met with, it was in 1717. See _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 395; _Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation_, p. 385; _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. i. p. 302; _Monk's Life of Bentley_, vol. ii. p. 350.

[724] A letter, written by the Rev. Thomas Clayton in 1727, is worth reading, as illustrating the feelings of the clergy on this subject. He asserts, that one of the causes of the obvious degeneracy of the age is, that, owing to Convocation not being allowed to meet, 'bold and impious books appear barefaced to the world without any public censure.' See this letter in _Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. iv. pp. 414-416; and compare with it, _Letters between Warburton and Hurd_, pp. 310-312.

Indeed, immediately after the Revolution, the tendency of things became too obvious to be mistaken, even by the most superficial observers. The ablest men in the country no longer flocked into the church, but preferred those secular professions in which ability was more likely to be rewarded.[725] At the same time, and as a natural part of the great movement, the clergy saw all the offices of power and emolument, which they had been used to hold, gradually falling out of their hands. Not only in the dark ages, but even so late as the fifteenth century, they were still strong enough to monopolize the most honourable and lucrative posts in the empire.[726] In the sixteenth century, the tide began to turn against them, and advanced with such steadiness, that, since the seventeenth century, there has been no instance of any ecclesiastic being made lord chancellor;[727] and, since the beginning of the eighteenth century, there has been no instance of one receiving any diplomatic appointment, or, indeed, holding any important office in the state.[728] Nor has this increasing ascendency of laymen been confined to the executive government. On the contrary, we find in both Houses of Parliament the same principle at work. In the early and barbarous periods of our history, one half of the House of Lords consisted of temporal peers; the other half of spiritual ones.[729] By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the spiritual peers, instead of forming one-half of the upper house, had dwindled away to one-eighth;[730] and, in the middle of the nineteenth century, they have still further shrunk to one-fourteenth:[731] thus supplying a striking numerical instance of that diminution of ecclesiastical power which is an essential requisite of modern civilization. Precisely in the same way, more than fifty years have elapsed since any clergyman has been able to take his seat as a representative of the people; the House of Commons having, in 1801, formally closed their doors against a profession which, in the olden time, would have been gladly admitted, even by the proudest and most exclusive assembly.[732] In the House of Lords, the bishops still retain their seats; but their precarious tenure is everywhere remarked, and the progress of public opinion is constantly pointing to a period, which cannot now be far distant, when the Peers will imitate the example set by the Commons, and will induce the legislature to relieve the upper house of its spiritual members; since they, by their habits, their tastes, and their traditions, are evidently unfitted for the profane exigencies of political life.[733]

[725] On the decline of ability in ecclesiastical literature, see note 38 in this chapter. In 1685, a complaint was made that secular professions were becoming more sought after than ecclesiastical ones. See _England's Wants_, sec. lvi. in _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. p. 231, where the writer mournfully states, that in his time 'physic and law, professions ever acknowledged in all nations to be inferior to divinity, are generally embraced by gentlemen, and sometimes by persons nobly descended, and _preferred much above the divine's profession_.' This preference was, of course, most displayed by young men of intellect; and a large amount of energy being thus drawn off from the church, gave rise to that decay of spirit and of general power which has been already noticed; and which is also indicated by Coleridge, in his remarks on the 'apologising theology' which succeeded the Revolution. _Coleridge's Lit. Remains_, vol. iii. pp. 51, 52, 116, 117, 119. Compare _Stephen's Essays on Ecclesiast. Biog._ 2d edit. 1850, vol. ii. p. 66, on 'this depression of theology;' and _Hare's Mission of the Comforter_, 1850, p. 264, on the 'intellectually feebler age.' Evelyn, in 1691, laments the diminished energy then beginning to be observed among 'young preachers.' _Evelyn's Diary_, vol. iii. p. 309; and for another notice, in 1696, of this 'dead and lifeless way of preaching,' see _Life of Cudworth_, p. 35, in vol. i. of _Cudworth's Intellect Syst._

[726] Sharon Turner, describing the state of things in England in the fifteenth century, says, 'Clergymen were secretaries of government, the privy seals, cabinet councillors, treasurers of the crown, ambassadors, commissioners to open parliament, and to Scotland; presidents of the king's council, supervisors of the royal works, chancellors, keepers of the records, the masters of the rolls, and even the physicians, both to the king and to the duke of Gloucester, during the reign of Henry VI. and afterwards.' _Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. vi. p. 132. On their enormous wealth, see _Eccleston's English Antiquities_, p. 146: 'In the early part of the fourteenth century, it is calculated that very nearly one-half of the soil of the kingdom was in the hands of the clergy.'

[727] In 1625, Williams bishop of Lincoln was dismissed from his office of lord-keeper; and Lord Campbell observes (_Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. ii. p. 492): 'This is the last time that an ecclesiastic has held the great seal of England; and, notwithstanding the admiration in some quarters of mediæval usages, I presume the experiment is not likely to be soon repeated.'

[728] Monk (_Life of Bentley_, vol. i. p. 222) says, that Dr. John Robinson, bishop of Bristol, was 'lord privy seal, and plenipotentiary at the treaty of Utrecht; and is the last ecclesiastic in England who has held any of the high offices of state.' A high-church writer, in 1712, complains of the efforts that were being made to 'thrust the churchmen out of their places of power in the government.' _Somers Tracts_, vol. xiii. p. 211.

[729] In and after the reign of Henry III. 'the number of archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and ecclesiastical persons was for the most part equal to, and very often far exceeded, the number of the temporal lords and barons.' _Parry's Parliaments and Councils of England_, London, 1839, p. xvii. Of this Mr. Parry gives several instances; the most remarkable of which is, that 'in 49 Henry III., 120 prelates, and only 23 temporal lords, were summoned.' This, of course, was an extreme case.

[730] See an analysis of the House of Lords, in 1713, in _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. i. pp. 43-45; from which it appears that the total was 207, of whom 26 were spiritual. This includes the Catholics.

[731] By the returns in Dod for 1854, I find that the House of Lords contains 436 members, of whom 30 belong to the episcopal bench.

[732] For different accounts, and of course different views, of this final expulsion of the clergy from the House of Commons, see _Pellew's Life of Sidmouth_, vol. i. pp. 419, 420; _Stephens's Mem. of Tooke_, vol. ii. pp. 247-260; _Holland's Mem. of the Whig Party_, vol. i. pp. 178-180; _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. vii. p. 148; _Twiss's Life of Eldon_, vol. i. p. 263; _Adolphus's Hist. of George III._, vol. vii. p. 487.

[733] That the banishment of the clergy from the lower house was the natural prelude to the banishment of the bishops from the upper, was hinted at the time, and with regret, by a very keen observer. In the discussion 'on the Bill to prevent Persons in Holy Orders from sitting in the House of Commons,' Lord Thurlow 'mentioned the tenure of the bishops at this time, and said, if the bill went to disfranchise the lower orders of the clergy, it might go the length of _striking at the right of the reverend bench opposite to seats in that house_; though he knew it had been held that the reverend prelates sat, in the right of their baronies, as temporal peers.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxv. p. 1542.

While the fabric of superstition was thus tottering from internal decay, and while that ecclesiastical authority which had formerly played so great a part was gradually yielding to the advance of knowledge, there suddenly occurred an event which, though it might naturally have been expected, evidently took by surprise even those whom it most interested. I allude, of course, to that great religious revolution, which was a fitting supplement to the political revolution which preceded it. The dissenters, who were strengthened by the expulsion of James, had by no means forgotten those cruel punishments which the Church of England, in the days of her power, had constantly inflicted upon them; and they felt that the moment had now come when they could assume towards her a bolder front than that on which they had hitherto ventured.[734] Besides this, they had in the mean time received fresh causes of provocation. After the death of our great king William III., the throne was occupied by a foolish and ignorant woman, whose love for the clergy would, in a more superstitious age, have led to dangerous results.[735] Even as it was, a temporary reaction took place, and during her reign the church was treated with a deference which William had disdained to show.[736] The natural consequence immediately followed. New measures of persecution were devised, and fresh laws were passed against those Protestants who did not conform to the doctrines and discipline of the English church.[737] But after the death of Anne the dissenters quickly rallied; their hopes revived,[738] their numbers continued to increase, and in spite of the opposition of the clergy, the laws against them were repealed.[739] As by these means they were placed more on a level with their opponents, and as their temper was soured by the injuries they had recently received, it was clear that a great struggle between the two parties was inevitable.[740] For by this time the protracted tyranny of the English clergy had totally destroyed those feelings of respect which, even in the midst of hostility, often linger in the mind; and by the influence of which, if they had still existed, the contest might perhaps have been averted. But such motives of restraint were now despised; and the dissenters, exasperated by incessant persecution,[741] determined to avail themselves of the declining power of the church. They had resisted her when she was strong; it was hardly to be expected that they would spare her when she was feeble. Under two of the most remarkable men of the eighteenth century, Whitefield, the first of theological orators,[742] and Wesley, the first of theological statesmen,[743] there was organized a great system of religion, which bore the same relation to the Church of England that the Church of England bore to the Church of Rome. Thus, after an interval of two hundred years, a second spiritual Reformation was effected in our country. In the eighteenth century the Wesleyans were to the Bishops what, in the sixteenth century, the Reformers were to the Popes.[744] It is indeed true, that the dissenters from the Church of England, unlike the dissenters from the Church of Rome, soon lost that intellectual vigour for which at first they were remarkable. Since the death of their great leaders, they have not produced one man of original genius; and since the time of Adam Clarke, they have not had among them even a single scholar who has enjoyed an European reputation. This mental penury is perhaps owing, not to any circumstances peculiar to their sect, but merely to that general decline of the theological spirit, by which their adversaries have been weakened as well as themselves.[745] Be this as it may, it is at all events certain, that the injury they have inflicted on the English church is far greater than is generally supposed, and, I am inclined to think, is hardly inferior to that which in the sixteenth century Protestantism inflicted upon Popery. Setting aside the actual loss in the number of its members,[746] there can be no doubt that the mere formation of a Protestant faction, unopposed by the government, was a dangerous precedent; and we know from contemporary history that it was so considered by those who were most interested in the result.[747] Besides this, the Wesleyans displayed an organization so superior to that of their predecessors the Puritans, that they soon became a centre round which the enemies of the church could conveniently rally. And, what is perhaps still more important, the order, regularity, and publicity, by which their proceedings have usually been marked, distinguished them from other sects; and by raising them as it were to the dignity of a rival establishment, have encouraged the diminution of that exclusive and superstitious respect which was once paid to the Anglican hierarchy.[748]

[734] It is impossible now to ascertain the full extent to which the Church of England, in the seventeenth century, persecuted the dissenters; but Jeremy White is said to have had a list of sixty thousand of these sufferers between 1660 and 1688, of whom no less than five thousand died in prison. _Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters_, vol. i. p. 108. On the cruel spirit which the clergy displayed in the reign of Charles II. compare _Harris's Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. v. p. 106; _Orme's Life of Owen_, p. 344; _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 534. Indeed, Harwood frankly said in the House of Commons, in 1672, 'Our aim is to bring all dissenting men into the Protestant church, and he that is not willing to come into the church should not have ease.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. iv. p. 530. On the zeal with which this principle was carried out, see an account, written in 1671, in _Somers Tracts_, vol. vii. pp. 586-615; and the statement of De Foe, in _Wilson's Life of De Foe_, vol. ii. pp. 443-444.

[735] Besides the correspondence which the Duchess of Marlborough preserved for the instruction of posterity, we have some materials for estimating the abilities of Anne in the letters published in _Dalrymple's Memoirs_. In one of them Anne writes, soon after the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience was issued, 'It is a melancholy prospect that all we of the Church of England have. All the sectaries may now do what they please. Every one has the free exercise of their religion, on purpose, no doubt, to ruin us, which I think to all impartial judges is very plain.' _Dalrymple's Memoirs_, appendix to book v. vol. ii. p. 173.

[736] See a notable passage in _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 558, which should be compared with Wilson's _Life of De Foe_, vol. iii. p. 372.

[737] _Bogue and Bennett's History of the Dissenters_, vol. i. pp. 228-230, 237, 260-277; and _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. pp. 396, 397. Mr. Hallam says, 'It is impossible to doubt for an instant, that if the queen's life had preserved the Tory government for a few years, every vestige of the toleration would have been effaced.' It appears from the _Vernon Correspond._ vol. iii. p. 228, Lond. 1841, that soon after the accession of Anne, there was a proposal 'to debar dissenters of their votes in elections;' and we know from Burnet (_Own Time_, vol. v. pp. 108, 136, 137, 218) that the clergy would have been glad if Anne had displayed even more zeal against them than she really did.

[738] _Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters_, vol. iii. p. 118. In Ivimey's _History of the Baptists_, it is said that the death of Anne was an 'answer to the dissenters' prayers.' _Southey's Commonplace Book_, third series, p. 135; see also p. 147, on the joy of the dissenters at the death of this troublesome woman.

[739] Two of the worst of them, 'the act against occasional conformity, and that restraining education, were repealed in the session of 1719.' _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 398. The repeal of the act against occasional conformity was strenuously opposed by the archbishops of York and of Canterbury (_Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters_, vol. iii. p. 132); but their opposition was futile; and when the Bishop of London, in 1726, wished to strain the Act of Toleration, he was prevented by Yorke, the attorney-general. See the pithy reply of Yorke, in _Harris's Life of Hardwicke_, vol. i. pp. 193, 194.

[740] At the end of the seventeenth century, great attention was excited by the way in which the dissenters were beginning to organize themselves into societies and synods. See, in the _Vernon Correspond._ vol. ii. pp. 128-130, 133, 156, some curious evidence of this, in letters written by Vernon, who was then secretary of state; and on the apprehensions caused by the increase of their schools, and by their systematic interference in elections, see _Life of Archbishop Sharp_, edited by Newcome, vol. i. pp. 125, 358. The church was eager to put down all dissenters' schools; and in 1705, the Archbishop of York told the House of Lords that he 'apprehended danger from the increase of dissenters, and particularly from the many academies set up by them.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. vi. pp. 492, 493. See also, on the increase of their schools, pp. 1351, 1352.

[741] In _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 684, it is stated, that in the reign of Charles II. 'this hard usage had begotten in the dissenters the utmost animosity against the persecuting churchmen.' Their increasing discontent, in the reign of Anne, was observed by Calamy. See _Calamy's Own Life_, vol. ii. pp. 244, 255, 274, 284, 285.

[742] If the power of moving the passions be the proper test by which to judge an orator, we may certainly pronounce Whitefield to be the greatest since the apostles. His first sermon was delivered in 1736 (_Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. ii. pp. 102, 122); his field-preaching began in 1739 (_Southey's Life of Wesley_, vol. i. pp. 196, 197); and the eighteen thousand sermons which he is said to have poured forth during his career of thirty-four years (_Southey's Wesley_, vol. ii. p. 531) produced the most astonishing effects on all classes, educated and uneducated. For evidence of the excitement caused by this marvellous man, and of the eagerness with which his discourses were read as well as heard, see _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. ii. pp. 546, 547, and his _Illustrations_, vol. iv. pp. 302-304; _Mem. of Franklin, by Himself_, vol. i. pp. 161-167; _Doddridge's Correspond._ vol. iv. p. 55; _Stewart's Philos. of the Mind_, vol. iii. pp. 291, 292; _Lady Mary Montagu's Letters_, in her Works, 1803, vol. iv. p. 162; _Correspond. between Ladies Pomfret and Hartford_, 2nd edit. 1806, vol. i. pp. 138, 160-162; _Marchmont Papers_, vol. ii. p. 377.

[743] Of whom Mr. Macaulay has said (_Essays_, vol. i. p. 221, 3rd edit.), that his 'genius for government was not inferior to that of Richelieu;' and strongly as this is expressed, it will hardly appear an exaggeration to those who have compared the success of Wesley with his difficulties.

[744] It was in 1739 that Wesley first openly rebelled against the church, and refused to obey the Bishop of Bristol, who ordered him to quit his diocese. _Southey's Life of Wesley_, vol. i. pp. 226, 243. In the same year he began to preach in the fields. See the remarkable entry in his _Journals_, p. 78, 29th March, 1739.

[745] They frankly confess that 'indifference has been another enemy to the increase of the dissenting cause.' _Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters_, vol. iv. p. 320. In _Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine_, pp. 39-43, there are some remarks on the diminished energy of Wesleyanism, which Mr. Newman seems to ascribe to the fact that the Wesleyans have reached that point in which 'order takes the place of enthusiasm.' p. 43. This is probably true; but I still think that the larger cause has been the more active one.

[746] Walpole, in his sneering way, mentions the spread of Methodism in the middle of the eighteenth century (_Walpole's Letters_, vol. ii. pp. 266, 272); and Lord Carlisle, in 1775, told the House of Lords (_Parl. Hist._ vol. xviii. p. 634) 'that Methodism was daily gaining ground, particularly in the manufacturing towns;' while, to come down still later, it appears from a letter by the Duke of Wellington to Lord Eldon(_Twiss's Life of Eldon_, vol. ii. p. 35) that about 1808 it was making proselytes in the army.

These statements, though accurate, are somewhat vague; but we have other and more precise evidence respecting the rapid growth of religious dissent. According to a paper found in one of the chests of William III., and printed by Dalrymple (_Memoirs_, vol. ii. part ii., appendix to chapter i. p. 40), the proportion in England of conformists to nonconformists was as 22-4/5 to 1. Eighty-four years after the death of William, the dissenters, instead of comprising only a twenty-third, were estimated at 'a fourth part of the whole community.' Letter from Watson to the Duke of Rutland, written in 1786, in _Life of Watson, Bishop of Llandaff_, vol. i. p. 246. Since then, the movement has been uninterrupted; and the returns recently published by government disclose the startling fact, that on Sunday, 31st March 1851, the members of the Church of England who attended morning service only exceeded by one-half the Independents, Baptists, and Methodists who attended at their own places of worship. See the Census Table, in _Journal of Statist. Soc._ vol. xviii. p. 151. If this rate of decline continues, it will be impossible for the Church of England to survive another century the attacks of her enemies.

[747] The treatment which the Wesleyans received from the clergy, many of whom were magistrates, shows what would have taken place if such violence had not been discouraged by the government. See _Southey's Life of Wesley_, vol. i. pp. 395-406. Wesley has himself given many details, which Southey did not think proper to relate, of the calumnies and insults to which he and his followers were subjected by the clergy. See _Wesley's Journals_, pp. 114, 145, 178, 181, 198, 235, 256, 275, 375, 562, 619, 637, 646. Compare _Watson's Observations on Southey's Wesley_, pp. 173, 174; and for other evidence of the treatment of those who differed from the church, see _Correspondence and Diary of Doddridge_, vol. ii. p. 17, vol. iii. pp. 108, 131, 132, 144, 145, 156. Grosley, who visited England in 1765, says of Whitefield, 'The ministers of the established religion did their utmost to baffle the new preacher; they preached against him, representing him to the people as a fanatic, a visionary, &c. &c.; in fine, they opposed him with so much success, that they caused him to be pelted with stones in every place where he opened his mouth to the public.' _Grosley's Tour to London_, Lond. 1772, vol. i. p. 356.

[748] That Wesleyanism encouraged dissent by imparting to it an orderly character, which in some degree approximated to church-discipline, is judiciously observed in _Bogue and Bennett's History of the Dissenters_, vol. iii. pp. 165, 166. But these writers deal rather too harshly with Wesley; though there is no doubt that he was a very ambitious man, and over-fond of power. At an early period of his career he began to aim at objects higher than those attempted by the Puritans, whose efforts, particularly in the sixteenth century, he looked at somewhat contemptuously. Thus, for instance, in 1747, only eight years after he had revolted against the church, he expresses in his Journal his wonder 'at the weakness of those holy confessors' (the Elizabethan Puritans), 'many of whom spent so much of their time and strength in disputing about surplice and hoods, or kneeling at the Lord's Supper!' _Journals_, p. 249, March 13th, 1747. Such warfare as this would have ill satisfied the soaring mind of Wesley; and from the spirit which pervades his voluminous Journals, as well as from the careful and far-seeing provisions which he made for managing his sect, it is evident that this great schismatic had larger views than any of his predecessors, and that he wished to organize a system capable of rivalling the established church.

But these things, interesting as they are, only formed a single step of that vast process by which the ecclesiastical power was weakened, and our countrymen thus enabled to secure a religious liberty, imperfect indeed, but far superior to that possessed by any other people. Among the innumerable symptoms of this great movement, there were two of peculiar importance. These were, the separation of theology, first from morals, and then from politics. The separation from morals was effected late in the seventeenth century; the separation from politics before the middle of the eighteenth century. And it is a striking instance of the decline of the old ecclesiastical spirit, that both of these great changes were begun by the clergy themselves. Cumberland, bishop of Peterborough, was the first who endeavoured to construct a system of morals without the aid of theology.[749] Warburton, bishop of Gloucester, was the first who laid down that the state must consider religion in reference, not to revelation, but to expediency; and that it should favour any particular creed, not in proportion to its truth, but solely with a view to its general utility.[750] Nor were these mere barren principles, which subsequent inquirers were unable to apply. The opinions of Cumberland, pushed to their furthest extent by Hume,[751] were shortly afterwards applied to practical conduct by Paley,[752] and to speculative jurisprudence by Bentham and Mill;[753] while the opinions of Warburton, spreading with still greater rapidity, have influenced our legislative policy, and are now professed, not only by advanced thinkers, but even by those ordinary men, who, if they had lived fifty years earlier, would have shrunk from them with unassembled fear.[754]

[749] Mr. Hallam (_Lit. of Europe_, vol. iii. p. 390) says, that Cumberland 'seems to have been the first Christian writer who sought to establish systematically the principles of moral right independently of revelation.' See also, on this important change, _Whewell's Hist. of Moral Philosophy in England_, pp. 12, 54. The dangers always incurred by making theology the basis of morals are now pretty well understood; but by no writer have they been pointed out more clearly than by M. Charles Comte: see the able exposition in his _Traité de Législation_, vol. i. pp. 223-247. There is a short and unsatisfactory account of Cumberland's book in _Mackintosh's Ethical Philosophy_, pp. 134-137. He was a man of considerable learning, and is noticed by M. Quatremère as one of the earliest students of Coptic. _Quatremère sur la Langue et la Littérature de l'Egypte_, p. 89. He was made a bishop in 1691, having published the _De Legibus_ in 1672. _Chalmers's Biog. Dict._ vol. xi. pp. 133, 135.

[750] This was in his work entitled _The Alliance between Church and State_, which first appeared, according to Hurd (_Life of Warburton_, 1794, 4to, p. 13), in 1736, and, as may be supposed, caused great scandal. The history of its influence I shall trace on another occasion; in the mean time, the reader should compare, respecting its tendency, _Palmer on the Church_, vol. ii. pp. 313, 322, 323; _Parr's Works_, vol. i. pp. 657, 665, vol. vii. p. 128; _Whately's Dangers to Christian Faith_, p. 190; and _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii. p. 18. In January 1739-40, Warburton writes to Stukeley (_Nichols's Illustrations_, vol. ii. p. 53): 'But you know how dangerous new roads in theology are, by the clamour of the bigots against me.' See also some letters which passed between him and the elder Pitt in 1762, on the subject of expediency, printed in _Chatham Correspond._ vol. ii. pp. 184 seq. Warburton writes, p. 190, 'My opinion is, and ever was, that the state has nothing at all to do with errors in religion, nor the least right so much as to attempt to repress them.' To make such a man a bishop was a great feat for the eighteenth century, and would have been an impossible one for the seventeenth.

[751] The relation between Cumberland and Hume consists in the entirely secular plan according to which both investigated ethics; in other respects, there is great difference between their conclusions; but if the anti-theological method is admitted to be sound, it is certain that the treatment of the subject by Hume is more consequential from the premisses, than is that by his predecessor. It is this which makes Hume a continuator of Cumberland; though with the advantage, not only of coming half a century after him, but of possessing a more comprehensive mind. The ethical speculations of Hume are in the third book of his _Treatise of Human Nature_ (_Hume's Philosophical Works_, Edin. 1826, vol. ii. pp. 219 seq.), and in his _Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals_, ibid. vol. iv. pp. 237-365.

[752] The moral system of Paley, being essentially utilitarian, completed the revolution in that field of inquiry; and as his work was drawn up with great ability, it exercised immense influence in an age already prepared for its reception. His _Moral and Political Philosophy_ was published in 1785; in 1786 it became a standard book at Cambridge; and by 1805 it had 'passed through fifteen editions.' _Meadley's Memoirs of Paley_, pp. 127, 145. Compare _Whewell's Hist. of Moral Philosophy_, p. 176.

[753] That the writings of these two eminent men form part of the same scheme, is well known to those who have studied the history of the school to which they belong; and on the intellectual relation they bore to each other, I cannot do better than refer to a very striking letter by James Mill himself, in _Bentham's Works_, edit. Bowring, vol. x. pp. 481, 482.

[754] The repeal of the Test Act, the admission of Catholics into Parliament, and the steadily increasing feeling in favour of the admission of the Jews, are the leading symptoms of this great movement. On the gradual diffusion among us of the doctrine of expediency, which, on all subjects not yet raised to sciences, ought to be the sole regulator of human actions, see a remarkable, but a mournful letter, written in 1812, in the _Life of Wilberforce_, vol. iv. p. 28. See also the speech of Lord Eldon in 1828, in _Twiss's Life of Eldon_, vol. ii. p. 203.

Thus it was that, in England, theology was finally severed from the two great departments of ethics and of government. As, however, this important change was at first not of a practical, but solely of an intellectual character, its operation was, for many years, confined to a small class, and has not yet produced the whole of those results which we have every reason to anticipate. But there were other circumstances which tended in the same direction, and which, being known to all men of tolerable education, produced effects more immediate, though perhaps less permanent. To trace their details, and point out the connexion between them, will be the business of part of the future volumes of this work: at present, I can only glance at the leading features. Of these, the most prominent were: The great Arian controversy, which, rashly instigated by Whiston, Clarke, and Waterland, disseminated doubts among nearly all classes;[755] the Bangorian controversy, which, involving matters of ecclesiastical discipline hitherto untouched, led to discussions dangerous to the power of the church;[756] the great work of Blackburne on the Confessional, which at one moment almost caused a schism in the Establishment itself;[757] the celebrated dispute respecting miracles between Middleton, Church, and Dodwell, continued, with still larger views, by Hume, Campbell, and Douglas; [758] the exposure of the gross absurdities of the Fathers, which, already begun by Daillé and Barbeyrac, was followed up by Cave, Middleton, and Jortin; the important and unrefuted statements of Gibbon, in his fifteenth and sixteenth chapters; the additional strength conferred on those chapters by the lame attacks of Davis, Chelsum, Whitaker, and Watson;[759] while, not to mention inferior matters, the century was closed amid the confusion caused by that decisive controversy between Porson and Travis, respecting the text of the Heavenly Witnesses, which excited immense attention,[760] and was immediately accompanied by the discoveries of geologists, in which, not only was the fidelity of the Mosaic cosmogony impugned, but its accuracy was shown to be impossible.[761] These things, following each other in rapid and startling succession, perplexed the faith of men, disturbed their easy credulity, and produced effects on the public mind, which can only be estimated by those who have studied the history of that time in its original sources. Indeed, they cannot be understood, even in their general bearings, except by taking into consideration some other circumstances with which the great progress was intimately connected.

[755] From a curious passage in _Hutton's Life of Himself_, p. 27, we learn that, in 1739, the scepticism of the Anti-Trinitarians had penetrated among the tradesmen at Nottingham. Compare, respecting the spread of this heresy, _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. viii. p. 375; _Priestley's Memoirs_, vol. i. pp. 25, 26, 53; _Doddridge's Correspond. and Diary_, vol. ii. p. 477, note; and on Peirce, who took an active part, and whom Whiston boasts of having corrupted, see _Whiston's Memoirs_, pp. 143, 144. Sharp, who was Archbishop of York when the controversy began, foresaw its dangerous consequences. _Life of Sharp_, edited by Newcome, vol. ii. pp. 7, 8, 135, 136. See further _Maclaine's note_ in _Mosheim's Ecclesiast. Hist._ vol. ii. pp. 293, 294; _Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation_, pp. 338, 342, 351; and a note in _Butler's Reminisc._ vol. i. pp. 206, 207.

[756] Mr. Butler (_Mem. of the Catholics_, vol. iii. pp. 182-184, 347-350) notices with evident pleasure the effect of this famous controversy in weakening the Anglican Church. Compare _Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters_, vol. iii. pp. 135-141. Whiston (_Memoirs_, p. 244) says: 'And, indeed, this Bangorian controversy seemed for a great while to engross the attention of the public.' See more about it in _Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation_, pp. 372-383; _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. i. p. 152, vol. ix. pp. 433, 434, 516; _Nichols's Illustrations_, vol. i. p. 840; _Bishop Newton's Life of Himself_, pp. 177, 178.

[757] _The Confessional_, a most able attack on the subscription of creeds and articles, was published in 1766; and, according to a contemporary observer, 'it excited a general spirit of inquiry.' _Cappe's Memoirs_, pp. 147, 148. The consequence was, that in 1772 a society was instituted by Blackburne and other clergy of the Church of England, with the avowed object of doing away with all subscriptions in religion. _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. i. p. 570; _Illustrations_, vol. vi. p. 854. A petition against the Articles was at once drawn up, signed by 200 clergy (_Adolphus's George III._ vol. i. p. 506), and brought before the House of Commons. In the animated debate which followed, Sir William Meredith said that 'the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England were framed when the spirit of free inquiry, when liberal and enlarged notions, were yet in their infancy.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xvii. p. 246. He added, p. 247: 'Several of the Articles are absolutely unintelligible, and, indeed, contradictory and absurd.' Lord George Germain said: 'In my apprehension, some of the Articles are incomprehensible, and some self-contradictory;' p. 265. Mr. Sawbridge declared that the Articles are 'strikingly absurd;' Mr. Salter that they are 'too absurd to be defended;' and Mr. Dunning that they are 'palpably ridiculous,' p. 294. For further information on this attempt at reform, see _Disney's Life of Jebb_, pp. 31-36; _Meadley's Mem. of Paley_, pp. 88-94; _Hodgson's Life of Porteus_, pp. 38-40; _Memoirs of Priestley_, vol. ii. p. 582; and a characteristic notice in _Palmer's Treatise on the Church_, vol. i. pp. 270, 271.

[758] Hume says, that on his return from Italy in 1749, he found 'all England in a ferment on account of Dr. Middleton's _Free Inquiry_.' _Hume's Life of Himself_, in his _Works_, vol. i. p. 7. See also, on the excitement caused by this masterly attack, _Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. ii. p. 176; which should be compared with _Doddridge's Correspond._ vol. iv. pp. 536, 537: and on the 'miraculous controversy' in general, see _Porteus's Life of Secker_, 1797, p. 38; _Phillimore's Mem. of Lyttleton_, vol. i. p. 161; _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. ii. pp. 440, 527, vol. iii. pp. 535, 750, vol. v. pp. 417, 418, 600; _Hull's Letters_, 1778, vol. i. p. 109; _Warburton's Letters to Hurd_, pp. 49, 50.

[759] _Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ has now been jealously scrutinized by two generations of eager and unscrupulous opponents; and I am only expressing the general opinion of competent judges when I say, that by each successive scrutiny it has gained fresh reputation. Against his celebrated fifteenth and sixteenth chapters, all the devices of controversy have been exhausted; but the only result has been, that while the fame of the historian is untarnished, the attacks of his enemies are falling into complete oblivion. The work of Gibbon remains; but who is there who feels any interest in what was written against him?

[760] On the effect produced by these matchless letters of Porson, see _Harford's Life of Bishop Burgess_, p. 374; and as to the previous agitation of the question in England, see _Calamy's Own Life_, vol. ii. pp. 442, 443; _Monk's Life of Bentley_, vol. ii. pp. 16-19, 146, 286-289; _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol. i. p. 211. Compare _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 137, vol. xiii. p. 458.

[761] The sceptical character of geology was first clearly exhibited during the last thirty years of the eighteenth century. Previously, the geologists had, for the most part, allied themselves with the theologians; but the increasing boldness of public opinion now enabled them to institute independent investigations, without regard to doctrines hitherto received. In this point of view, much was effected by the researches of Hutton, whose work, says Sir Charles Lyell, contains the first attempt 'to explain the former changes of the earth's crust by reference exclusively to natural agents.' _Lyell's Principles of Geology_, p. 50. To establish this method was, of course, to dissolve the alliance with the theologians; but an earlier symptom of the change was seen in 1773, that is, fifteen years before Hutton wrote: see a letter in _Watson's Life of Himself_, vol. i. p. 402, where it is stated that the 'freethinkers' attacked the 'Mosaic account of the world's age, especially since the publication of Mr. Brydone's _Travels Through Sicily and Malta_.' According to Lowndes (_Bibliographer's Manual_, vol. i. p. 279), Brydone's book was published in 1773; and in 1784 Sir William Jones notices the tendency of these inquiries: see his _Discourse on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India_, in which he observes (_Works_, vol. i. p. 233) with regret, that he lived in 'an age when some intelligent and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt the authenticity of the accounts delivered by Moses concerning the primitive world.' Since then, the progress of geology has been so rapid, that the historical value of the writings of Moses is abandoned by all enlightened men, even among the clergy themselves. I need only refer to what has been said by two of the most eminent of that profession, Dr. Arnold and Mr. Baden Powell. See the observations of Arnold in _Newman's Phases of Faith_, p. 111 (compare pp. 122, 123); and the still more decisive remarks in _Powell's Sermons on Christianity without Judaism_, 1856, pp. 38, 39. For other instances, see _Lyell's Second Visit to the United States_, 1849, vol. i. pp. 219, 220.

For, in the mean time, an immense change had begun, not only among speculative minds, but also among the people themselves. The increase of scepticism stimulated their curiosity; and the diffusion of education supplied the means of gratifying it. Hence, we find that one of the leading characteristics of the eighteenth century, and one which pre-eminently distinguished it from all that preceded, was a craving after knowledge on the part of those classes from whom knowledge had hitherto been shut out. It was in that great age, that there were first established schools for the lower orders on the only day they had time to attend them,[762] and newspapers on the only day they had time to read them.[763] It was then that there were first seen, in our country, circulating libraries;[764] and it was then, too, that the art of printing, instead of being almost confined to London, began to be generally practised in country-towns.[765] It was also in the eighteenth century, that the earliest systematic efforts were made to popularize the sciences, and facilitate the acquisition of their general principles, by writing treatises on them in an easy and untechnical style:[766] while, at the same time, the invention of Encyclopædias enabled their results to be brought together, and digested in a form more accessible than any hitherto employed.[767] Then, too, we first meet with literary periodical reviews; by means of which large bodies of practical men acquired information, scanty indeed, but every way superior to their former ignorance.[768] The formation of societies for purchasing books now became general;[769] and, before the close of the century, we hear of clubs instituted by reading men among the industrious classes.[770] In every department, the same eager curiosity was shown. In the middle of the eighteenth century, debating societies sprung up among tradesmen;[771] and this was followed by a still bolder innovation, for, in 1769, there was held the first public meeting ever assembled in England, the first in which it was attempted to enlighten Englishmen respecting their political rights.[772] About the same time, the proceedings in our courts of law began to be studied by the people, and communicated to them through the medium of the daily press.[773] Shortly before this, political newspapers arose,[774] and a sharp struggle broke out between them and the two Houses of Parliament touching the right of publishing the debates; the end of which was, that both houses, though aided by the crown, were totally defeated; and, for the first time, the people were able to study the proceedings of the national legislature, and thus gain some acquaintance with the national affairs.[775] Scarcely was this triumph completed, when fresh stimulus was given by the promulgation of that great political doctrine of personal representation,[776] which must eventually carry all before it; and the germ of which may be traced late in the seventeenth century, when the true idea of personal independence began to take root and flourish.[777] Finally, it was reserved for the eighteenth century to set the first example of calling on the people to adjudicate upon those solemn questions of religion in which hitherto they had never been consulted, although it is now universally admitted that to their growing intelligence these, and all other matters, must ultimately be referred.[778]

[762] It is usually supposed that Sunday-schools were began by Raikes, in 1781; but, though he appears to have been the first to organize them on a suitable scale, there is no doubt that they were established by Lindsey, in or immediately after 1765. See _Cappe's Memoir's_, pp. 118, 122; _Harford's Life of Burgess_, p. 92; _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii. pp. 430, 431, vol. ix. p. 540; _Chalmers's Biog. Dict._ vol. xxv. p. 485; _Journ. of Stat. Soc._ vol. x. p. 196, v. xiii. p. 265; _Hodgson's Life of Porteus_, p. 92. It is said, in _Spencer's Social Statics_, p. 343, that the clergy of the Church of England were, as a body, opposed to the establishment of Sunday-schools. (Compare _Watson's Observations on Southey's Wesley_, p. 149.) At all events, they increased rapidly, and by the end of the century had become common. See _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. v. pp. 678, 679; _Nichols's Illustrations_, vol. i. p. 460; _Life of Wilberforce_, vol. i. p. 180, vol. ii. p. 296; _Wesley's Journals_, pp. 806, 897.

[763] Mr. Hunt (_Hist. of Newspapers_, vol. i. p. 273) makes no mention of Sunday newspapers earlier than a notice by Crabbe in 1785; but in 1799, Lord Belgrave said, in the House of Commons, that they first appeared 'about the year 1780.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxiv. p. 1006. In 1799, Wilberforce tried to have a law enacted to suppress them. _Life of Wilberforce_, vol. ii. pp. 338, 424.

[764] When Franklin came to London, in 1725, there was not a single circulating library in the metropolis. See _Franklin's Life of Himself_, vol. i. p. 64; and, in 1697, 'the only library in London which approached the nature of a public library was that of Sion College, belonging to the London clergy.' _Ellis's Letters of Literary Men_, p. 245. The exact date of the earliest circulating library I have not yet ascertained; but, according to Southey (_The Doctor_, edit. Warter, 1848, p. 271), the first set up in London was about the middle of the eighteenth century, by Samuel Fancourt. Hutton (_Life of Himself_, p. 279) says, 'I was the first who opened a circulating library in Birmingham, in 1751.' Other notices of them, during the latter half of the century, will be found in _Coleridge's Biographia Literaria_, vol. ii. p. 329, edit. 1847; _Leigh Hunt's Autobiography_, vol. i. p. 260; _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii. pp. 648, 682; _Nichols's Illustrations_, vol. i. p. 424; _Whewell's Hist. of Moral Philosophy_, p. 190; _Sinclair's Correspond._ vol. i. p. 143. Indeed, they increased so rapidly, that some wise men proposed to tax them, 'by a licence, at the rate of 2_s._ 6_d._ per 100 volumes per annum.' _Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue_, vol. iii. p. 268.

[765] In 1746, Gent, the well-known printer, wrote his own life. In this curious work, he states, that in 1714 there were 'few printers in England, except London, at that time; none then, I am sure, at Chester, Liverpool, Whitehaven, Preston, Manchester, Kendal, and Leeds, as for the most part now abound.' _Life of Thomas Gent_, pp. 20, 21. (Compare a list of country printing-houses, in 1724, in _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. i. p. 289.) How this state of things was remedied, is a most important inquiry for the historian; but in this note I can only give a few illustrations of the condition of different districts. The first printing-office in Rochester was established by Fisher, who died in 1786 (_Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii. p. 675); the first in Whitby, was in 1770 (_Illustrations_, vol. iii. p. 787); and Richard Greene, who died in 1793, 'was the first who brought a printing-press to Lichfield' (_Ibid._ vol. vi. p. 320). In the reign of Anne, there was not a single bookseller in Birmingham (_Southey's Commonplace Book_, 1st series, 1849, p. 568); but, in 1749, we find a printer established there (_Hull's Letters_, Lond. 1778, vol. i. p. 92); and, in 1774, there was a printer even in Falkirk (_Parl. Hist._ vol. xvii. p. 1099). In other parts the movement was slower; and we are told that, about 1780, 'there was scarcely a bookseller in Cornwall.' _Life of Samuel Drew, by his Son_, 1834, pp. 40, 41.

[766] Desaguliers and Hill were the two first writers who gave themselves up to popularizing physical truths. At the beginning of the reign of George I. Desaguliers was 'the first who read lectures in London on experimental philosophy.' _Southey's Commonplace Book_, 3d series, 1850, p. 77. See also _Penny Cyclopædia_, vol. viii. p. 430; and, on his elementary works, compare _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. vi. p. 81. As to Hill, he is said to have set the example of publishing popular scientific works in numbers; a plan so well suited to that inquisitive age, that, if we believe Horace Walpole, he 'earned fifteen guineas a week.' _Letter to Henry Zouch_, January 3rd, 1761, in _Walpole's Letters_, vol. iv. p. 117, edit. 1840.

In the latter half of the eighteenth century, the demand for books on the natural sciences rapidly increased (see, among many other instances which might be quoted, a note in _Pulteney's Hist. of Botany_, vol. ii. p. 180); and, early in the reign of George III., Priestley began to write popularly on physical subjects. (_Memoirs of Priestley_, vol. i. pp. 288, 289.) Goldsmith did something in the same direction (_Prior's Life of Goldsmith_, vol. i. pp. 414, 469, vol. ii. p. 198); and Pennant, whose earliest work appeared in 1766, was 'the first who treated the natural history of Britain in a popular and interesting style.' _Swainson on the Study of Natural History_, p. 50. In the reign of George II., publishers began to encourage elementary works on chemistry. _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. ix. p. 763.

[767] In 1704, 1708, and 1710, Harris published his _Dictionary of Arts and Sciences_; and from this, according to _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. ix. pp. 770, 771, has 'originated all the other dictionaries and cyclopædias that have since appeared.' Compare vol. v. p. 659; and _Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters_, vol. iv. p. 500.

[768] Late in the seventeenth century, an attempt was first made in England to establish literary journals. _Hallam's Lit. of Europe_, vol. iii. p. 539; and _Dibdin's Bibliomania_, 1842, p. 16. But reviews, as we now understand the word, meaning a critical publication, were unknown before the accession of George II.; but, about the middle of his reign, they began to increase. Compare _Wright's England under the House of Hanover_, 1848, vol. i. p. 304, with _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii. pp. 507, 508. At an earlier period, the functions of reviews were performed, as Monk says, by pamphlets. _Monk's Life of Bentley_, vol. i. p. 112.

[769] As we find from many casual notices of book clubs and book societies. See, for example, _Doddridge's Correspond._ vol. ii. pp. 57, 119; _Jesse's Life of Selwyn_, vol. ii. p. 23; _Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. v. pp. 184, 824, 825; _Wakefield's Life of Himself_, vol. i. p. 528; _Memoirs of Sir J. E. Smith_, vol. i. p. 8; _Life of Roscoe, by his Son_, vol. i. p. 228 (though this last was perhaps a circulating library).

[770] 'Numerous associations or clubs, composed principally of reading men of the lower ranks.' _Life of Dr. Currie, by his Son_, vol. i. p. 175.

[771] Of which the most remarkable was that called the Robin-Hood Society; respecting which the reader should compare _Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. vi. p. 373; _Grosley's London_, vol. i. p. 150; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xvii. p. 301; _Southey's Commonplace Book_, 4th series, p. 339; _Forster's Life of Goldsmith_, vol. i. p. 310; _Prior's Life of Goldsmith_, vol. i. pp. 419, 420; _Prior's Life of Burke_, p. 75; _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii. p. 154.

[772] 'From the summer of 1769 is to be dated the first establishment of public meetings in England.' _Albemarle's Mem. of Rockingham_, vol. ii. p. 93. 'Public meetings, ... through which the people might declare their newly-acquired consciousness of power, ... cannot be distinctly traced higher than the year 1769; but they were now (_i.e._ in 1770) of daily occurrence.' _Cooke's Hist. of Party_, vol. iii. p. 187. See also _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 420.

[773] The most interesting trials were first noticed in newspapers towards the end of the reign of George II. _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. v. p. 52, vol. vi. p. 54.

[774] In 1696, the only newspapers were weekly; and the first daily paper appeared in the reign of Anne. Compare _Simmonds's Essay on Newspapers_, in _Journal of Statist. Society_, vol. iv. p. 113, with _Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers_, vol. i. pp. 167, 175, vol. ii. p. 90; and _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iv. p. 80. In 1710, they, instead of merely communicating news, as heretofore, began to take part in 'the discussion of political topics' (_Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 443); and, as this change had been preceded a very few years by the introduction of cheap political pamphlets (see a curious passage in _Wilson's Life of De Foe_, vol. ii. p. 29), it became evident that a great movement was at hand in regard to the diffusion of such inquiries. Within twenty years after the death of Anne, the revolution was completed; and the press, for the first time in the history of the world, was made an exponent of public opinion. The earliest notice of this new power which I have met in parliament, is in a speech delivered by Danvers, in 1738; which is worth quoting, both because it marks an epoch, and because it is characteristic of that troublesome class to which the man belonged. 'But I believe,' says this distinguished legislator,--'but I believe the people of Great Britain are governed by a power that never was heard of, as a supreme authority, in any age or country before. This power, sir, does not consist in the absolute will of the prince, in the direction of parliament, in the strength of an army, in the influence of the clergy, neither, sir, is it a petticoat government: but, sir, it is the government of the press. The stuff which our weekly newspapers are filled with, is received with greater reverence than acts of parliament; and the sentiments of one of these scribblers have more weight with the multitude than the opinion of the best politician in the kingdom.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. x. p. 448.

[775] This great contest was brought to a close in 1771 and 1772; when, as Lord Campbell says, 'the right of publishing parliamentary debates was substantially established.' _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. v. p. 511, vol. vi. p. 90. For further information respecting this important victory, see _Cooke's Hist. of Party_, vol. iii. pp. 179-184; _Almon's Correspond. of Wilkes_, 1805, vol. v. p. 63; _Stephens's Mem. of Tooke_, vol. i. pp. 329-351; _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. v. p. 290; and, on its connexion with _Junius's Letters_, see _Forster's Life of Goldsmith_, vol. ii. pp. 183, 184.

George III., always consistent and always wrong, strenuously opposed this extension of the popular rights. In 1771, he wrote to Lord North: 'It is highly necessary that this strange and lawless method of publishing debates in the papers should be put a stop to. But is not the House of Lords the best court to bring such miscreants before; as it can fine, as well as imprison, and has broader shoulders to support the odium of so salutary a measure?' _App. to Mahon_, vol. v. p. xlviii.; and _note_ in _Walpole's George III._ vol. iv. p. 280, where the words, 'in the papers,' are omitted; but I copy the letter, as printed by Lord Mahon. In other respects, both versions are the same; so that we now know the idea George III. had of what constituted a miscreant.

[776] Lord John Russell, in his work on the _History of the English Constitution_, says: 'Dr. Jebb, and after him Mr. Cartwright, broached the theory of personal representation;' but this appears to be a mistake, since the theory is said to have been first put forward by Cartwright, in 1776. Compare _Russell on the Constitution_, 1821, pp. 240, 241, with _Life and Corresp. of Cartwright_, 1826, vol. i. pp. 91, 92. A letter in the _Life of Dr. Currie_, vol. ii. pp. 307-314, shows the interest which even sober and practical men were beginning to feel in the doctrine before the end of the century.

[777] On this I have a philological remark of some interest,--namely, that there is reason to believe that 'the word "independence," in its modern acceptation,' does not occur in our language before the early part of the eighteenth century. See _Hare's Guesses at Truth_, 2nd series, 1848, p. 262. A similar change, though at a later period, took place in France. See the observations on the word 'individualisme,' in _Tocqueville_, _Démocratie en Amérique_, vol. iv. p. 156; and in the later work, by the same author, _L'Ancien Régime_, Paris, 1856, pp. 148, 149.

[778] Archbishop Whately (_Dangers to Christian Faith_, pp. 76, 77) says: 'Neither the attacks on our religion, nor the evidences in its support, were, to any great extent, brought forward in a popular form, till near the close of the last century. On both sides, the learned (or those who professed to be such) seem to have agreed in this,--that the mass of the people were to acquiesce in the decision of their superiors, and neither should, nor could, exercise their own minds on the question.' This is well put, and quite true; and should be compared with the complaint in _Wakefield's Life of Himself_, vol. ii. p. 21; _Nichols's Lit. Anec. of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. viii. p. 144; and _Hodgson's Life of Bishop Porteus_, pp. 73, 74, 122, 125, 126. See also a speech by Mansfield, in 1781 (_Parl. Hist._ vol. xxii. p. 265), when an attempt was made to put down the 'Theological Society.' The whole debate is worth reading; not on account of its merits, but because it supplies evidence of the prevailing spirit.

In connexion with all this, there was a corresponding change in the very form and make of our literature. The harsh and pedantic method, which our great writers had long been accustomed to employ, was ill suited to an impetuous and inquisitive generation, thirsting after knowledge, and therefore intolerant of obscurities formerly unheeded. Hence it was that, early in the eighteenth century, the powerful, but cumbrous, language, and the long, involved sentences, so natural to our ancient authors, were, notwithstanding their beauty, suddenly discarded, and were succeeded by a lighter and simpler style, which, being more rapidly understood, was better suited to the exigencies of the age.[779]

[779] Coleridge (_Lit. Remains_, vol. i. pp. 230 seq.) has made some interesting remarks on the vicissitudes of English style; and he justly observes, p. 238, that, 'after the Revolution, the spirit of the nation became much more commercial than it had been before; a learned body, or clerisy, as such, gradually disappeared; and literature in general began to be addressed to the common, miscellaneous public.' He goes on to lament this change; though, in that, I disagree with him. See also _The Friend_, vol. i. p. 19, where he contrasts the modern style with 'the stately march and difficult evolutions' of the great writers of the seventeenth century. Compare, on this alteration, the preface to Nader Shah, in _Works of Sir W. Jones_, vol. v. p. 544. See also, in _Harford's Life of Burgess_, pp. 40, 41, a curious letter from Monboddo, the last of our really great pedants, mourning over this characteristic of modern composition. He terms it contemptuously a 'short cut of a style;' and wishes to return to 'the true ancient taste,' with plenty of 'parentheses!'

The truth is, that this movement was merely part of that tendency to approximate the different classes of society which was first clearly seen in the eighteenth century, and which influenced not only the style of author, but also their social habits. Hume observes that, in the 'last age,' learned men had separated themselves too much from the world; but that, in his time, they were becoming more 'conversible.' _Essay V._, in _Hume's Philosophical Works_, vol. iv. pp. 539, 540. That 'philosophers' were growing men of the world, is also noticed in a curious passage in _Alciphron_, dial. i., in _Berkeley's Works_, vol. i. p. 312; and, respecting the general social amalgamation, see a letter to the Countess of Bute, in 1753, in _Works of Lady Mary Montagu_, edit. 1803, vol. iv. pp. 194, 195. As to the influence of Addison, who led the way in establishing the easy, and therefore democratic, style, and who, more than any single writer, made literature popular, compare _Aikin's Life of Addison_, vol. ii. p. 65, with _Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. p. 7. Subsequently a reaction was attempted by Johnson, Gibbon, and Parr; but this, being contrary to the spirit of the age, was short-lived.

The extension of knowledge being thus accompanied by an increased simplicity in the manner of its communication, naturally gave rise to a greater independence in literary men, and a greater boldness in literary inquiries. As long as books, either from the difficulty of their style, or from the general incuriosity of the people, found but few readers, it was evident that authors must rely upon the patronage of public bodies, or of rich and titled individuals. And, as men are always inclined to flatter those upon whom they are dependent, it too often happened that even our greatest writers prostituted their abilities by fawning upon the prejudices of their patrons. The consequence was that literature, so far from disturbing ancient superstitions, and stirring up the mind to new inquiries, frequently assumed a timid and subservient air, natural to its subordinate position. But now all this was changed. Those servile and shameful dedications;[780] that mean and crouching spirit; that incessant homage to mere rank and birth; that constant confusion between power and right; that ignorant admiration for everything which is old, and that still more ignorant contempt for everything which, is new:--all these features became gradually fainter: and authors, relying upon the patronage of the people, began to advocate the claims of their new allies with a boldness upon which they could not have ventured in any previous age.[781]

[780] And the servility was, for the most part, well paid; indeed, rewarded far more than it was worth. During the sixteenth, seventeenth, and early part of the eighteenth century, a sum of money was invariably presented to the author in return for his dedication. Of course, the grosser the flattery, the larger the sum. On the relation thus established between authors and men of rank, and on the eagerness with which even eminent writers looked to their patrons for gratuities, varying from 40_s._ to 100_l._, see _Drake's Shakespeare and his Times_, 1817, 4to. vol. ii. p. 225; _Monk's Life of Bentley_, vol. i. pp. 194, 309; _Whiston's Memoirs_, p. 203; _Nichols's Illustrations_, vol. ii. p. 709; _Harris's Life of Hardwicke_, vol. iii. p. 35; _Bunbury's Life of Hanmer_, p. 81. Compare a note in _Burton's Diary_, vol. iii. p. 52; and as to the importance of fixing on a proper person to whom to dedicate, see _Ellis's Letters Lit. Men_, pp. 231-234; and the matter-of-fact remark in _Bishop Newton's Life_, p. 14; also, _Hughes's Letters_, edit. 1773, vol. iii. p. xxxi. appendix.

About the middle of the eighteenth century was the turning-point of this deplorable condition; and Watson, for instance, in 1769, laid it down as a rule, 'never to dedicate to those from whom I expected favours.' _Watson's Life of Himself_, vol. i. p. 54. So, too, Warburton, in 1758, boasts that his dedication was not, as usual, 'occupied by trifles or falsehoods.' See his letter, in _Chatham Correspond._ vol. i. p. 315. Nearly at the same period, the same change was effected in France, where D'Alembert set the example of ridiculing the old custom. See _Brougham's Men of Letters_, vol. ii. pp. 439, 440; _Correspond. de Madame Dudeffand_, vol. ii. p. 148; and _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xl. p. 41, vol. lxi. p. 285.

[781] When Le Blanc visited England, in the middle of the reign of George II., the custom of authors relying upon the patronage of individuals was beginning to die away, and the plan of publishing by subscription had become general. See the interesting details in _Le Blanc_, _Lettres d'un Français_, vol. i. pp. 305-308; and for the former state of things, see vol. ii. pp. 148-153. Burke, who came to London in 1750, observes, with surprise, that 'writers of the first talents are left to the capricious patronage of the public. Notwithstanding discouragement, literature is cultivated to a high degree.' _Prior's Life of Burke_, p. 21. This increasing independence also appears from the fact that, in 1762, we find the first instance of a popular writer attacking public men by name; authors having previously confined themselves 'to the initials only of the great men whom they assailed.' _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. v. p. 19. The feud between literature and rank may be further illustrated by an entry in Holcroft's Diary for 1798, _Mem. of Holcroft_, vol. iii. p. 28.

From all these things there resulted consequences of vast importance. From this simplification, independence, and diffusion[782] of knowledge, it necessarily happened, that the issue of those great disputes to which I have alluded became, in the eighteenth century, more generally known than would have been possible in any preceding century. It was now known that theological and political questions were being constantly agitated, in which genius and learning were on one side, and orthodoxy and tradition on the other. It became known that the points which were mooted were not only as to the credibility of particular facts, but also as to the truth of general principles, with which the interests and happiness of Man were intimately concerned. Disputes which had hitherto been confined to a very small part of society began to spread far and wide, and suggest doubts that served as materials for national thought. The consequence was, that the spirit of inquiry became every year more active, and more general; the desire for reform constantly increased; and if affairs had been allowed to run on in their natural course, the eighteenth century could not have passed away without decisive and salutary changes both in the church and the state. But soon after the middle of this period, there unfortunately arose a series of political combinations which disturbed the march of events, and eventually produced a crisis so full of danger, that, among any other people, it would certainly have ended either in a loss of liberty or in a dissolution of government. This disastrous reaction, from the effects of which England has, perhaps, barely recovered, has never been studied with anything like the care its importance demands; indeed, it is so little understood, that no historian has traced the opposition between it and that great intellectual movement of which I have just sketched an outline. On this account, as also with the view of giving more completeness to the present chapter, I intend to examine its most important epochs, and point out, so far as I am able, the way in which they are connected with each other. According to the scheme of this Introduction, such an inquiry must, of course, be very cursory, as its sole object is to lay a foundation for those general principles, without which history is a mere assemblage of empirical observations, unconnected, and therefore unimportant. It must likewise be remembered, that as the circumstances about to be considered were not social, but political, we are the more liable to err in our conclusions respecting them; and this partly because the materials for the history of a people are more extensive, more indirect, and therefore less liable to be garbled, than are those for the history of a government; and partly because the conduct of small bodies of men, such as ministers and kings, is always more capricious, that is to say, less regulated by known laws, than is the conduct of those large bodies collectively called society, or a nation.[783] With this precautionary remark, I will now endeavour to trace what, in a mere political point of view, is the reactionary and retrogressive period of English history.

[782] In England, the marked increase in the number of books took place during the latter half of the eighteenth century, and particularly after 1756. See some valuable evidence in _Journal of the Statistical Society_, vol. iii. pp. 383, 384. To this I may add, that between 1753 and 1792, the circulation of newspapers was more than doubled. _Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers_, vol. i. p. 252.

[783] The apparent caprice and irregularity in small numbers arise from the perturbations produced by the operation of minor and usually unknown laws. In large numbers, these perturbations have a tendency to balance each other; and this I take to be the sole foundation of the accuracy obtained by striking an average. If we could refer all phenomena to their laws, we should never use averages. Of course, the expression _capricious_ is, strictly speaking, inaccurate, and is merely a measure of our ignorance.

It must be considered as a most fortunate circumstance, that after the death of Anne,[784] the throne should be occupied for nearly fifty years by two princes, aliens in manners and in country, of whom one spoke our language but indifferently, and the other knew it not at all.[785] The immediate predecessors of George III. were, indeed, of so sluggish a disposition, and were so profoundly ignorant of the people they undertook to govern,[786] that, notwithstanding their arbitrary temper, there was no danger of their organizing a party to extend the boundaries of the royal prerogative.[787] And as they were foreigners, they never had sufficient sympathy with the English church to induce them to aid the clergy in their natural desire to recover their former power.[788] Besides this, the fractious and disloyal conduct of many of the hierarchy must have tended to alienate the regard of the sovereign, as it had already cost them the affection of the people.[789]

[784] The temporary political reaction under Anne is well related by Lord Cowper, in his _Hist. of Parties_, printed in appendix to _Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. iv. p. 411, 412. This able work of Lord Campbell's, though rather inaccurate for the earlier period, is particularly valuable for the history of the eighteenth century.

[785] See _Reminiscences of the Courts of George I. and George II. by Horace Walpole_, pp. lv. xciv.; and _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. i. pp. 100, 235. The fault of George II. was in his bad pronunciation of English; but George I. was not even able to pronounce it badly, and could only converse with his minister, Sir Robert Walpole, in Latin. The French court saw this state of things with great pleasure; and in December 1714, Madame de Maintenon wrote to the Princess des Ursins (_Lettres inédites de Maintenon_, vol. iii. p. 157): 'On dit que le nouveau roi d'Angleterre se dégoûte de ses sujets, et que ses sujets sont dégoûtés de lui. Dieu veuille remettre le tout en meilleur ordre!' On the effect this produced on the language spoken at the English court, compare _Le Blanc_, _Lettres d'un Français_, vol. i. p. 159.

[786] In 1715, Leslie writes respecting George I., that he is 'a stranger to you, and altogether ignorant of your language, your laws, customs, and constitution.' _Somers Tracts_, vol. xiii. p. 703.

[787] Great light has been thrown upon the character of George II. by the recent publication of _Lord Hervey's Memoirs_; a curious work, which fully confirms what we know from other sources respecting the king's ignorance of English politics. Indeed, that prince cared for nothing but soldiers and women; and his highest ambition was to combine the reputation of a great general with that of a successful libertine. Besides the testimony of Lord Hervey, it is certain, from other authorities, that George II. was despised as well as disliked, and was spoken of contemptuously by observers of his character, and even by his own ministers. See the _Marchmont Papers_, vol. i. pp. 29, 181, 187.

In reference to the decline of the royal authority, it is important to observe, that since the accession of George I. none of our sovereigns have been allowed to be present at state deliberations. See _Bancroft's American Revolution_, vol. ii. p. 47, and _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iii. p. 191.

[788] See the remarks said to be written by Bishop Atterbury, in _Somers Tracts_, vol. xiii. p. 534, contrasting the affection Anne felt for the church with the coldness of George I. The whole of the pamphlet (pp. 521-541) ought to be read. It affords a curious picture of a baffled churchman.

[789] The ill-feeling which the Church of England generally bore against the government of the two first Georges was openly displayed, and was so pertinaceous as to form a leading fact in the history of England. In 1722, Bishop Atterbury was arrested, because he was known to be engaged in a treasonable conspiracy with the Pretender. As soon as he was seized, the church offered up prayers for him. 'Under the pretence,' says Lord Mahon,--'under the pretence of his being afflicted with the gout, he was publicly prayed for in most of the churches of London and Westminster.' _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. p. 38. See also _Parl. Hist._ vol. vii. p. 988, and vol. viii. p. 347.

At Oxford, where the clergy have long been in the ascendant, they made such efforts to instill their principles as to call down the indignation of the elder Pitt, who, in a speech in Parliament in 1754, denounced that university, which he said had for many years 'been raising a succession of treason--there never was such a seminary!' _Walpole's Mem. of George II._ vol. i. p. 413. Compare the _Bedford Correspondence_, vol. i. pp. 594, 595, with _Harris's Life of Hardwicke_, vol. ii. p. 383; and on the temper of the clergy generally after the death of Anne, _Parl. Hist._ vol. vii. pp. 541, 542; _Bowles's Life of Ken_, vol. ii. pp. 188, 189; _Monk's Life of Bentley_, vol. i. pp. 370, 426.

The immediate consequence of this was very remarkable. For the government and the dissenters, being both opposed by the church, naturally combined together: the dissenters using all their influence against the Pretender, and the government protecting them against ecclesiastical prosecutions. See evidence of this in _Doddridge's Correspond. and Diary_, vol. i. p. 30, vol. ii. p. 321, vol. iii. pp. 110, 125, vol. iv. pp. 428, 436, 437; _Hutton's Life of Himself_, pp. 159, 160; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxviii. pp. 11, 393, vol. xxix. pp. 1434, 1463; _Memoirs of Priestley_, vol. ii. p. 506; _Life of Wakefield_, vol. i. p. 220.

These circumstances, though in themselves they may be considered trifling, were in reality of great importance, because they secured to the nation the progress of that spirit of inquiry, which, if there had been a coalition between the crown and the church, it would have been attempted to stifle. Even as it was, some attempts were occasionally made; but they were comparatively speaking rare, and they lacked the vigour which they would have possessed, if there had been an intimate alliance between the temporal and spiritual authorities. Indeed, the state of affairs was so favourable, that the old Tory faction, pressed by the people and abandoned by the crown, was unable for more than forty years to take any share in the government.[790] At the same time, considerable progress, as we shall hereafter see, was made in legislation; and our statute-book, during that period, contains ample evidence of the decline of the powerful party by which England had once been entirely ruled.

[790] 'The year 1762 forms an era in the history of the two factions, since it witnessed the destruction of that monopoly of honours and emoluments which the Whigs had held for forty-five years.' _Cooke's Hist. of Party_, vol. ii. p. 406. Compare _Albemarle's Memoirs of Rockingham_, vol. ii. p. 92. Lord Bolingbroke clearly foresaw what would happen in consequence of the accession of George I. Immediately after the death of Anne, he wrote to the Bishop of Rochester: 'But the grief of my soul is this, I see plainly that the Tory party is gone.' _Macpherson's Original Papers_, vol. ii. p. 651.

But by the death of George II. the political aspect was suddenly changed, and the wishes of the sovereign became once more antagonistic to the interests of the people. What made this the more dangerous was, that, to a superficial observer, the accession of George III. was one of the most fortunate events that could have occurred. The new king was born in England, spoke English as his mother tongue,[791] and was said to look upon Hanover as a foreign country, whose interests were to be considered of subordinate importance.[792] At the same time, the last hopes of the House of Stuart were now destroyed;[793] the Pretender himself was languishing in Italy, where he shortly after died; and his son, a slave to vices which seemed hereditary in that family, was consuming his life in an unpitied and ignominious obscurity.[794]

[791] Grosley, who visited England only five years after the accession of George III., mentions the great effect produced upon the English when they heard the king pronounce their language without 'a foreign accent.' _Grosley's Tour to London_, vol. ii. p. 106. It is well known that the king, in his first speech, boasted of being a Briton; but what is, perhaps, less generally known is, that the honour was on the side of the country: 'What a lustre,' said the House of Lords in their address to him,--'what a lustre does it cast upon the name of Briton when you, sir, are pleased to esteem it amongst your glories!' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xv. p. 986.

[792] _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxix. p. 955; _Walpole's Mem. of George III._ vol. i. pp. 4, 110.

[793] The accession of George III. is generally fixed on as the period when English Jacobinism became extinct. See _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol. ii. p. 92. At the first court held by the new king, it was observed, says Horace Walpole, that 'the Earl of Litchfield, Sir Walter Bagot, and the principal Jacobites went to court.' _Walpole's Mem. of George III._ vol. i. p. 14. Only three years earlier the Jacobites had been active; and in 1757, Rigby writes to the Duke of Bedford: 'Fox's election at Windsor is very doubtful. There is a Jacobite subscription of 5,000_l._ raised against him, with Sir James Dashwood's name at the head of it.' _Bedford Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 261.

[794] Charles Stuart was so stupidly ignorant, that at the age of twenty-five he could hardly write, and was altogether unable to spell. _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. iii. pp. 165, 166, and appendix, p. ix. After the death of his father, in 1766, this abject creature, who called himself king of England, went to Rome, and took to drinking. _Ibid._ vol. iii. pp. 351-353. In 1779, Swinburne saw him at Florence, where he used to appear every night at the opera, perfectly drunk. _Swinburne's Courts of Europe_, vol. i. pp. 253-255; and in 1787, only the year before he died, he continued the same degrading practice. See a letter from Sir J. E. Smith, written from Naples in March 1787, in _Smith's Correspond._ vol. i. p. 208. Another letter, written as early as 1761 (_Grenville Papers_, vol. i. p. 366), describes 'the young Pretender always drunk.'

And yet these circumstances, which appeared so favourable, did of necessity involve the most disastrous consequences. The fear of a disputed succession being removed, the sovereign was emboldened to a course on which he otherwise would not have ventured.[795] All those monstrous doctrines respecting the rights of kings, which the Revolution was supposed to have destroyed, were suddenly revived.[796] The clergy, abandoning the now hopeless cause of the Pretender, displayed the same zeal for the House of Hanover which they had formerly displayed for the House of Stuart. The pulpits resounded with praises of the new king, of his domestic virtues, of his piety, but above all of his dutiful attachment to the English church. The result was, the establishment of an alliance between the two parties more intimate than any that had been seen in England since the time of Charles I.[797] Under their auspices, the old Tory faction rapidly rallied, and were soon able to dispossess their rivals of the management of the government. This reactionary movement was greatly aided by the personal character of George III.; for he, being despotic as well as superstitious, was equally anxious to extend the prerogative, and strengthen the church. Every liberal sentiment, everything approaching to reform, nay, even the mere mention of inquiry, was an abomination in the eyes of that narrow and ignorant prince. Without knowledge, without taste, without even a glimpse of one of the sciences, or a feeling for one of the fine arts, education had done nothing to enlarge a mind which nature had more than usually contracted.[798] Totally ignorant of the history and resources of foreign countries, and barely knowing their geographical position, his information was scarcely more extensive respecting the people over whom he was called to rule. In that immense mass of evidence now extant, and which consists of every description of private correspondence, records of private conversation and of public acts, there is not to be found the slightest proof that he knew any one of those numerous things which the governor of a country ought to know; or, indeed, that he was acquainted with a single duty of his position, except that mere mechanical routine of ordinary business, which might have been effected by the lowest clerk in the meanest office in his kingdom.

[795] On the connexion between the decline of the Stuart interest and the increased power of the crown under George III., compare _Thoughts on the Present Discontents_, in _Burke's Works_, vol. i. pp. 127, 128, with _Watson's Life of Himself_, vol. i. p. 136; and for an intimation that this result was expected, see _Grosley's London_, vol. ii. p. 252.

[796] _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. v. p. 245: 'The divine indefeasible right of kings became the favourite theme--in total forgetfulness of its incompatibility with the parliamentary title of the reigning monarch.' Horace Walpole (_Mem. of George III._ vol. i. p. 16) says, that in 1760 'prerogative became a fashionable word.'

[797] The respect George III. always displayed for church-ceremonies formed of itself a marked contrast with the indifference of his immediate predecessors; and the change was gratefully noticed. Compare _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. v. pp. 54, 55, with the extract from Archbishop Secker, in _Bancroft's American Revolution_, vol. i. p. 440. For other evidence of the admiration both parties felt and openly expressed for each other, see an address from the bishop and clergy of St. Asaph (_Parr's Works_, vol. vii. p. 352), and a letter from the king to Pitt (_Russell's Memorials of Fox_, vol. iii. p. 251), which should be compared with _Priestley's Memoirs_, vol. i. pp. 137, 138.

[798] The education of George III. had been shamefully neglected; and when he arrived at manhood he never attempted to repair its deficiencies, but remained during his long life in a state of pitiable ignorance. Compare _Brougham's Statesmen_, vol. i. pp. 13-15; _Walpole's Mem. of George III._ vol. i. p. 55; _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. iv. pp. 54, 207.

The course of proceeding which such a king as this was likely to follow could be easily foreseen. He gathered round his throne that great party, who, clinging to the tradition of the past, have always made it their boast to check the progress of their age. During the sixty years of his reign, he, with the sole exception of Pitt, never willingly admitted to his councils a single man of great ability;[799] not one whose name is associated with any measure of value either in domestic or in foreign policy. Even Pitt only maintained his position in the state by forgetting the lessons of his illustrious father, and abandoning those liberal principles in which he had been educated, and with which he entered public life. Because George III. hated the idea of reform, Pitt not only relinquished what he had before declared to be absolutely necessary,[800] but did not hesitate to persecute to the death the party with whom he had once associated in order to obtain it.[801] Because George III. looked upon slavery as one of those good old customs which the wisdom of his ancestors had consecrated, Pitt did not dare to use his power for procuring its abolition, but left to his successors the glory of destroying that infamous trade, on the preservation of which his royal master had set his heart.[802] Because George III. detested the French, of whom he knew as much as he knew of the inhabitants of Kamtchatka or of Tibet, Pitt, contrary to his own judgment, engaged in a war with France by which England was seriously imperilled, and the English people burdened with a debt that their remotest posterity will be unable to pay.[803] But, notwithstanding all this, when Pitt, only a few years before his death, showed a determination to concede to the Irish some small share of their undoubted rights, the king dismissed him from office; and the king's friends, as they were called,[804] expressed their indignation at the presumption of a minister who could oppose the wishes of so benign and gracious a master.[805] And when, unhappily for his own fame, this great man determined to return to power, he could only recover office by conceding that very point for which he had relinquished it; thus setting the mischievous example of the minister of a free country sacrificing his own judgment to the personal prejudices of the reigning sovereign.

[799] See some good remarks by Lord John Russell in his Introduction to the _Bedford Correspondence_, vol. iii. p. lxii.

[800] In a motion for reform in Parliament in 1782, he declared that it was 'essentially necessary.' See his speech, in _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxii. p. 1418. In 1784 he mentioned 'the necessity of a parliamentary reform,' vol. xxiv. p. 349; see also pp. 998, 999. Compare _Disney's Life of Jebb_, p. 209. Nor is it true, as some have said, that he afterwards abandoned the cause of reform because the times were unfavourable to it. On the contrary, he, in a speech delivered in 1800, said (_Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxv. p. 47): 'Upon this subject, sir, I think it right to state the inmost thoughts of my mind; I think it right to declare my most decided opinion, that, _even if the times were proper for experiments, any, even the slightest, change in such a constitution must be considered as an evil_.' It is remarkable that, even as early as 1783, Paley appears to have suspected the sincerity of Pitt's professions in favour of reform. See _Meadley's Memoirs of Paley_, p. 121.

[801] In 1794 Grey taunted him with this in the House of Commons: 'William Pitt, the reformer of that day, was William Pitt, the prosecutor, ay and persecutor too, of reformers now.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxi. p. 532; compare vol. xxxiii. p. 659. So, too, Lord Campbell (_Chief-Justices_, vol. ii. p. 544): 'He afterwards tried to hang a few of his brother reformers who continued steady in the cause.' See further, on this damning fact in the career of Pitt, _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. vii. p. 105; _Brougham's Statesmen_, vol. ii. p. 21; _Belsham's History_, vol. ix. pp. 79, 242; _Life of Cartwright_, vol. i. p. 198; and even a letter from the mild and benevolent Roscoe, in _Life of Roscoe, by his Son_, vol. i. p. 113.

[802] Such was the king's zeal in favour of the slave-trade, that in 1770 'he issued an instruction under his own hand commanding the governor (of Virginia), upon pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.' _Bancroft's American Revolution_, vol. iii. p. 456: so that, as Mr. Bancroft indignantly observes, p. 469, while the courts of law had decided 'that as soon as any slave set his foot on English ground he becomes free, the king of England stood in the path of humanity, and made himself the pillar of the colonial slave-trade.' The shuffling conduct of Pitt in this matter makes it hard for any honest man to forgive him. Compare _Brougham's Statesmen_, vol. ii. pp. 14, 103-105; _Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. iii. pp. 131, 278, 279; _Belsham's Hist. of Great Britain_, vol. x. pp. 34, 35; _Life of Wakefield_, vol. i. p. 197; _Porter's Progress of the Nation_, vol. iii. p. 426; _Holland's Mem. of the Whig Party_, vol. ii. p. 157; and the striking remarks of Francis, in _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxii. p. 949.

[803] That Pitt wished to remain at peace, and was hurried into the war with France by the influence of the court, is admitted by the best-informed writers, men in other respects of different opinions. See, for instance, _Brougham's Statesmen_, vol. ii. p. 9; _Rogers's Introduction to Burke's Works_, p. lxxxiv.; _Nicholls's Recollections_, vol. ii. pp. 155, 200.

[804] The mere existence of such a party, with such a name, shows how, in a political point of view, England was receding during this period from the maxims established at the Revolution. Respecting this active faction, compare the indignant remarks of Burke (_Works_, vol. i. p. 133) with _Albemarle's Rockingham_, vol. i. pp. 5, 307; _Buckingham's Mem. of George III._ vol. i. p. 284, vol. ii. p. 154; _Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. i. pp. 61, 120, vol. ii. pp. 50, 77; _Bedford Correspond._ vol. iii. p. xlv.; _Parr's Works_, vol. viii. p. 513; _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol. i. p. 74; _Burke's Correspond._ vol. i. p. 352; _Walpole's George III._ vol. iv. p. 315; _The Grenville Papers_, vol. ii. pp. 33, 34, vol. iii. p. 57, vol. iv. p. 79, 152, 219, 303; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xvi. pp. 841, 973, vol. xviii. pp. 1005, 1246, vol. xix. pp. 435, 856, vol. xxii. pp. 650, 1173.

[805] See an extraordinary passage in _Pellew's Life of Sidmouth_, vol. i. p. 334.

As it was hardly possible to find other ministers, who to equal abilities would add equal subservience, it is not surprising that the highest offices were constantly filled by men of notorious incapacity.[806] Indeed, the king seemed to have an instinctive antipathy to everything great and noble. During the reign of George II. the elder Pitt had won for himself a reputation which covered the world, and had carried to an unprecedented height the glories of the English name.[807] He, however, as the avowed friend of popular rights, strenuously opposed the despotic principles of the court; and for this reason he was hated by George III. with a hatred that seemed barely compatible with a sane mind.[808] Fox was one of the greatest statesmen of the eighteenth century, and was better acquainted than any other with the character and resources of those foreign nations with which our own interests were intimately connected.[809] To this rare and important knowledge he added a sweetness and an amenity of temper which extorted the praises even of his political opponents.[810] But he, too, was the steady supporter of civil and religious liberty; and he, too, was so detested by George III., that the king, with his own hand, struck his name out of the list of privy councillors,[811] and declared that he would rather abdicate the throne than admit him to a share in the government.[812]

[806] This decline in the abilities of official men was noticed by Burke, in 1770, as a necessary consequence of the new system. Compare _Thoughts on the Present Discontents_ (_Burke's Works_, vol. i. p. 149) with his striking summary (_Parl. Hist._ vol. xvi. p. 879) of the degeneracy during the first nine years of George III. 'Thus situated, the question at last was not, who could do the public business best, but who would undertake to do it at all. Men of talents and integrity would not accept of employments where they were neither allowed to exercise their judgment nor display the rectitude of their hearts.' In 1780, when the evil had become still more obvious, the same great observer denounced it in his celebrated address to his Bristol constituents. 'At present,' he says, 'it is the plan of the court to make its servants insignificant.' _Burke's Works_, vol. i. p. 257. See further _Parr's Works_, vol. iii. pp. 256, 260, 261.

[807] The military success of his administration is related in very strong language, but not unfairly, in _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. iv. pp. 108, 185, 186, and see the admirable summary in _Brougham's Statesmen_, vol. i. pp. 33, 34: and for evidence of the fear with which he inspired the enemies of England, compare _Mahon_, vol. v. p. 165 note; _Bedford Correspond._ vol. iii. pp. 87, 246, 247; _Walpole's Letters to Mann_, vol. i. p. 304, edit. 1843; _Walpole's Mem. of George III._ vol. ii. p. 232; and the reluctant admission in _Georgel, Mémoires_, vol. i. pp. 79, 80.

[808] Lord Brougham (_Sketches of Statesmen_, vol. i. pp. 22, 33) has published striking evidence of what he calls 'the truly savage feelings' with which George III. regarded Lord Chatham (compare _Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. i. p. 129). Indeed, the sentiments of the king were even displayed in the arrangements at the funeral of the great minister. _Note in Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. ii. p. 568; and for other evidence of ill-will, see two notes from the king to Lord North, in _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. vi. appendix, pp. lii. liv.; _The Grenville Papers_, vol. ii. p. 386; _Bancroft's American Revolution_, vol. i. p. 438.

[809] Lord Brougham (_Sketches of Statesmen_, vol. i. p. 219) says: 'It may be questioned if any politician, in any age, ever knew so thoroughly the various interests and the exact position of all the countries with which his own had dealings to conduct or relations to maintain.' See also _Parr's Works_, vol. iv. pp. 14, 15; _Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. i. pp. 320, 321, vol. ii. pp. 91, 243; _Bisset's Life of Burke_, vol. i. p. 338.

[810] Burke, even after the French Revolution, said, that Fox 'was of the most artless, candid, open, and benevolent disposition, disinterested in the extreme; of a temper mild and placable even to a fault, without one drop of gall in his whole constitution.' Speech on the Army Estimates in 1790, in _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxviii. p. 356. For further evidence, compare _Alison's Hist. of Europe_, vol. vii. p. 171; _Holland's Mem. of the Whig Party_, vol. i. pp. 3, 273; _Trotter's Mem. of Fox_, pp. xi. xii., 24, 178, 415.

[811] _Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. vi. p. 692. A singular circumstance connected with this wanton outrage is related in the _Mem. of Holcroft_, vol. iii. p. 60.

[812] Compare _Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. iv. pp. 107, 108, with _Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. i. pp. 191, 287, 288, vol. ii. p. 44. Dutens, who had much intercourse with English politicians, heard of the threat of abdication in 1784. _Dutens's Mémoires_, vol. iii. p. 104. Lord Holland says, that during the fatal illness of Fox, 'the king had watched the progress of Mr. Fox's disorder. He could hardly suppress his indecent exultation at his death.' _Holland's Mem. of the Whig Party_, vol. ii. p. 49.

While this unfavourable change was taking place in the sovereign and ministers of the country, a change equally unfavourable was being effected in the second branch of the imperial legislature. Until the reign of George III., the House of Lords was decidedly superior to the House of Commons in the liberality and general accomplishments of its members. It is true, that in both houses there prevailed a spirit which must be called narrow and superstitious, if tried by the larger standard of the present age. But among the peers such feelings were tempered by an education that raised them far above those country gentlemen and ignorant fox-hunting squires of whom the lower house was then chiefly composed. From this superiority in their knowledge, there naturally followed a larger and more liberal turn of thought than was possessed by those who were called the representatives of the people. The result was, that the old Tory spirit, becoming gradually weaker in the upper house, took refuge in the lower; where, for about sixty years after the Revolution, the high-church party and the friends of the Stuarts formed a dangerous faction.[813] Thus, for instance, the two men who rendered the most eminent services to the Hanoverian dynasty, and therefore to the liberties of England, were undoubtedly Somers and Walpole. Both of them were remarkable for their principles of toleration, and both of them owed their safety to the interference of the House of Lords. Somers, early in the eighteenth century, was protected by the peers from the scandalous prosecution instituted against him by the other house of parliament.[814] Forty years after this, the Commons, who wished to hunt Walpole to the death, carried up a bill encouraging witnesses to appear against him by remitting to them the penalties to which they might be liable.[815] This barbarous measure had been passed through the lower house without the least difficulty; but in the Lords it was rejected by a preponderance of nearly two to one.[816] In the same way the Schism Act, by which the friends of the church subjected the dissenters to a cruel persecution,[817] was hurried through the Commons by a large and eager majority.[818] In the Lords, however, the votes were nearly balanced; and although the bill was passed, amendments were added by which the violence of its provisions was in some degree softened.[819]

[813] In 1725, the Duke of Wharton, in a letter to the Pretender, after mentioning some proceedings in the Commons, adds, 'In the House of Lords our number is so small, that any behaviour there will be immaterial.' _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. appendix, p.