Chapter VII (5)

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.