Chapter VII (2)

[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.