[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.

[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.

[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.’

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.’

[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 cœur. 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.