No More Learning

CH. XIV.


## p. 338 (#364) ############################################

338
Philosophers
Principles of Political Economy, Steuart was a Jacobite laird,
who, in 1763, returned from a long exile abroad. He had travelled
extensively, and his work contains the result of observation of
different states of society as well as of systematic reflection ; but
it is without merit in respect of literary form. It is presented to
the public as 'an attempt towards reducing to principles, and
forming into a regular science, the complicated interests of
domestic policy. ' It deals with 'population, agriculture, trade,
industry, money, coin, interest, circulation, banks, exchange,
public credit, and taxes'; and the author has a definite view of
scientific method. He speaks, indeed, of 'the art of political
economy,' using the term “political economy' in much the same
sense as that in which Smith used it in dealing with 'systems of
political economy' in the fourth book of his great work. But this
art is the statesman's business; and behind the statesman stands
'the speculative person, who, removed from the practice, extracts the
principles of this science from observation and reflection. Steuart
does not pretend to a system, but only to 'a clear deduction of
principles. ' These principles, however, are themselves gathered
from experience. His first chapter opens with the assertion, 'Man
we find acting uniformly in all ages, in all countries, and in all
climates, from the principles of self-interest, expediency, duty and
passion. ' And, of these, “the ruling principle' which he follows is
'the principle of self-interest. ' From this point, the author's
method may be described as deductive, and as resembling that
of Smith's successors more than it does Smith's own. Further, he
recognises that the conclusions, like the principles from which they
proceed, are abstract and may not fit all kinds of social conditions,
so that the political economy in each [country] must necessarily
be different. How far Smith took account of Steuart's reasonings
we cannot say; he does not mention his name: though he is
reported to have said that he understood Steuart's system better
from his talk than from his book.
Adam Smith does not begin with a discourse on method; he
was an artist in exposition; and he feared, perhaps unduly, any
appearance of pedantry. He plunges at once into his subject :
"The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally
supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which
it annually consumes. ' These first words suggest the prevailing
theme. Wealth consists not in the precious metals, but in the
goods which men use or consume; and its source or cause is
labour. On this foundation, he builds the structure of his science;
6
6
6


## p. 339 (#365) ############################################

The Wealth of Nations
339
and—although he says nothing about it—we can trace the method
which he regarded as appropriate to his enquiry. It may be
described shortly as abstract reasoning checked and reinforced
by historical investigation. The main theorems of the analytical
economics of a later period are to be found expressed or suggested
in his work; but almost every deduction is supported by concrete
instances. Rival schools have, thus, regarded him as their founder,
and are witnesses to his grasp of principles and insight into facts.
He could isolate a cause and follow out its effects; and, if he was
apt sometimes to exaggerate its prominence in the complex of
human motives and social conditions, it was because the facts at
his disposal did not suggest the necessary qualifications of his
doctrine, although more recent experience has shown that the
qualifications are needed.
Adam Smith isolates the fact of wealth and makes it the
subject of a science. But he sees this fact in its connections
with life as a whole. His reasonings are grounded in a view of
human nature and its environment, both of which meet in labour,
the source of wealth and also, as he thinks, the ultimate standard
of the value of commodities. In the division of labour, he sees the
first step taken by man in industrial progress. His treatment of
this subject has become classical, and is too well known for quota-
tion; it is more to the purpose to point out that it was an
unerring instinct for essentials which led him, in his first chapter,
to fix attention on a point so obvious that it might easily have
been overlooked and yet of far-reaching importance in social
development generally. The division of labour, according to
Smith, is the result of the propensity to truck, barter, and
exchange one thing for another. ' But his analysis of motives
goes deeper than this; and, so far as they are concerned with
wealth, human motives seem to be reduced by him to two: 'the
passion for present enjoyment' which 'prompts to expense,' and
'the desire of bettering our condition’ which 'prompts to save. '
Both are selfish; and it is on this motive of self-interest, or a view
of one's own advantage, that Smith constantly relies. He con-
structs an economic commonwealth which consists of a multitude
of persons, each seeking his own interest and, in so doing, un-
wittingly furthering the public good—thus promoting an end
which was no part of his intention. '
• The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition,' he says,
•when suffered to exert itself with freedom and security, is so powerful a
principle, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of
1
6
22-2


## p. 340 (#366) ############################################

340
Philosophers
carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a
hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too
often encumbers its operations. '
6
Smith, like many other philosophers of the time, assumed that
there was a natural identity of public and private interest. It is
a comfortable belief that society would be served best if everybody
looked after his own interests; and, in an economist, this belief was,
perhaps, an inevitable reaction from a condition in which state regu-
lation of industry had largely consisted in distributing monopolies
and other privileges. In Smith's mind, the belief was also bound
up with the view that this identity of interests resulted from the
guidance of the invisible hand' that directs the fate of mankind.
But the belief itself was incapable of verification, and subsequent
industrial history refutes it. Indeed, in various places in his work,
Smith himself declines to be bound by it. He thinks that the
interests of the landowners and of the working class are in
close agreement with the interest of society, but that those of
'merchants and master manufacturers' have not the same connec-
tion with the public interest. 'The interest of the dealers,' he
says, “is always in some respects different from, and even opposite
to, that of the public. The harmony of interests, therefore, is
incomplete. Nor would it be fair to say that Smith had
relinquished, in The Wealth of Nations, his earlier view of the
social factor in human motive. What he did hold was, rather,
that, in the pursuit of wealth, that is to say, in industry and
commerce, the motive of self-interest predominates; in famous
passages, he speaks as if no other motive need be taken into
account; but he recognises its varying strength; and it is only
in the class of 'merchants and master manufacturers' that he
regards it as having free course: they are acute in the perception
of their own interest and unresting in its pursuit; in the country
gentleman, on the other hand, selfish interest is tempered by
generosity and weakened by indolence.
From the nature of man and the environment in which he is
placed, Smith derives his doctrine of the natural progress of
opulence. ' Subsistence is ‘prior to conveniency and luxury’;
agriculture provides the former, commerce the latter; the culti-
vation of the country, therefore, precedes the increase of the
town; the town, indeed, has to subsist on the surplus produce of
the country; foreign commerce comes later still. This is the
natural order, and it is promoted by man's natural inclinations.
But human institutions have thwarted these natural inclinations,


## p. 341 (#367) ############################################

6
The System of Natural Liberty 341
and, ‘in many respects, entirely inverted' the natural order. Up
to Adam Smith's time, the regulation of industry had been almost
universally admitted to be part of the government's functions;
criticism of the principles and methods of this regulation had not
been wanting; the theory of the balance of trade,' for instance,
important in the doctrine of the mercantilists, had been ex-
amined and rejected by Hume and by others before him. But
Smith made a comprehensive survey of the means by which, in
agriculture, in the home trade and in foreign commerce, the state
had attempted to regulate industry; these attempts, he thought,
were all diversions of the course of trade from its 'natural channels';
and he maintained that they were uniformly pernicious. Whether
it acts by preference or by restraint, every such system ‘retards,
instead of accelerating, the progress of the society towards real
wealth and greatness; and diminishes, instead of increasing, the
real value of the annual produce of its land and labour. ' When
all such systems are swept away, the obvious and simple system of
natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. '
The ideas and arguments of Adam Smith were influential, at a
later date, in establishing the system of free trade in Great Britain;
and, perhaps, it would be not far wrong to say that a generation
of economists held his views on this question to be his most solid
title to fame. He regarded liberty as natural in contrast with the
artificiality of government control; and the term “natural' plays
an ambiguous part in his general reasonings, changing its shade of
meaning, but always implying a note of approval. In this, he only
used the language of his time—though Hume had pointed out that
the word was treacherous. But it has to be borne in mind that,
while he extolled this 'natural liberty' as the best thing for trade,
he did not say that it was in all cases the best thing for a country.
He saw that there were other things than wealth which were worth
having, and that of some of these the state was the guardian.
Security must take precedence of opulence, and, on this ground,
he would restrict natural liberty, not only to defend the national
safety, but, also, for the protection of individual traders.
III. OTHER PHILOSOPHICAL WRITERS
As we look back upon the development of philosophical
problems, it might seem that, for a philosophical writer after
Hume, there was but one thing worth doing—to answer him, if
possible; and, if that were not possible, to keep silent. But the


## p. 342 (#368) ############################################

342
Philosophers
issue was not quite so clear to his contemporaries. Indeed, his
own example did not press it home. It showed, on the contrary,
that work of importance might be done in certain departments
even when the contradiction was ignored to which Hume had
reduced the theory of knowledge. Soon after the publication of
A Treatise of Human Nature, valuable writings appeared on
psychology, and on moral and political theory; there were also
critics of Hume in considerable number, and one of that number
had both the insight to trace Hume's scepticism to its logical origin
and the intellectual capacity to set forth a theory of knowledge in
which the same difficulty should not arise.
Among the psychologists, the most important place belongs to
David Hartley, a physician, and sometime fellow of Jesus college,
Cambridge, whose Observations on Man: his frame, his duty, and
his expectations appeared in 1749. The rapid march of philosophical
thought in the previous forty years was ignored by, and probably
unknown to, the author. The whole second part of his book in
which he works out a theological theory may be regarded as
antiquated. He does not mention Berkeley; he seems never to
have heard of David Hume. But the first or psychological part
of the book has two striking features: it is a systematic attempt
at a physiological psychology, and it developed the theory of
the association of ideas in a way which influenced, far more than
Hume did, the views of the later associational school of James Mill
and his successors. The physiological doctrine was suggested by
certain passages in Newton's Optics. Hartley supposes that the
contact of an external object with the sensory nerves excites
vibrations in the æther residing in the pores of these nerves ';
these vibrations enter the brain, are 'propagated freely every
way over the whole medullary substance,' and sensations are the
result; further, they leave vestiges or traces behind them, and this
is the origin of ideas which depend on minute vibrations or 'vibra-
tiuncles. ' Motor activity is explained in a similar way. This
physiological view is the basis of his whole doctrine of mind, and,
more particularly, of the doctrine of association. In respect of the
latter doctrine, Hartley wrote under the influence of Locke; but he
has left it on record that the suggestion to make use of association
as a general principle of psychological explanation came from John
Gay, who had written A Dissertation prefixed to Law's English
translation of archbishop King's Origin of Evil (1731), in which
the doctrine was used to explain the connection of morality with
6


## p. 343 (#369) ############################################

Abraham Tucker
343
private happiness. Hartley offered a physiological explanation of
association itself, gave a generalised statement of its laws and
applied it to the details of mental life. He did not see, as Hume
had seen, the special difficulty of applying it so as to explain
judgment, assent, or belief.
Abraham Tucker was a psychologist of a different temper from
Hartley. He was a constant critic of Hartley's physiological
doctrines, and he excelled in that introspective analysis which
has been practised by many English writers. Tucker was a
country gentleman whose chief employment was a study of the
things of the mind. The first fruit of his reflection was a fragment
Freewill, Foreknowledge and Fate (1763), published under the
pseudonym of Edward Search ; certain criticisms of this piece
produced, also in 1763, Man in quest of Himself: or a Defence
of the Individuality of the Human Mind, ‘by Cuthbert Com-
ment. ' Thereafter, he did not turn aside from his great work, The
Light of Nature pursued, of which the first four volumes were
published by himself (again under the name of Search) in 1765,
and the last three appeared after his death (1774). The author
was a man of leisure himself, and he wrote for men of leisure; he
was not without method ; but his plan grew as he proceeded;
when new fields of enquiry opened, he did not refuse to wander in
them; and he liked to set forth his views de omnibus rebus et
quibusdam aliis. Indeed, it is a work of inordinate length, and
the whole is of unequal merit. Many of the long chapters have
lost their interest through lapse of time and the changes which
time has brought. Others, perhaps, may appeal to us only when
we can catch the author's mood. Such are the speculations-put
forward as purely hypothetical-concerning the soul's vehicle, the
mundane soul and the vision of the disembodied soul. Mysticism
is apt to appear fantastic when expressed in language so matter of
fact; but the writer has a rare power of realising his fancies.
The chapters, however, which deal more specifically with human
nature are a genuine and important contribution to the litera-
ture of mind and morals. The writer was as innocent of Hume
as was Hartley; he criticised Berkeley, though seldom with insight
and never with sympathy; and he took Locke as his master. But
he was not a slavish follower; it would be difficult to instance
finer or more exhaustive criticism than his examination of the
Lockean view that all action has for its motive the most pressing
uneasiness. His moral doctrine is, perhaps, still more remarkable


## p. 344 (#370) ############################################

344
Philosophers
for the candour and elaboration with which he discussed the
problem which faced all followers of Locke—the consistency of
an analysis of action in terms of personal pleasure and pain with
a theory of morality in which benevolence is supreme. Herein, he
provided most of the material afterwards made use of by Paley.
Into the details of his teaching it is impossible to enter. But,
perhaps, it is not too much to say that only his diffuseness has
prevented him from becoming a classic. The mere mass of the
book is deterrent. Yet he would be an unlucky reader who could
spend half-an-hour over its pages without finding something to
arrest his attention and even to enthral his interest. The author
sees mankind and the human lot with a shrewd but kindly eye;
his stores of illustration are inexhaustible and illuminate subjects
which in other hands would be dull; even the subtlest points
are made clear by a style which is free and simple and varied ;
there is never any trace of sentimentality; but there are passages
of humour and of pathos worthy of Goldsmith.
Richard Price, a native of Glamorgan, who became a unitarian
minister in London, left his mark on more than one department
of thought. His Observations on Reversionary Payments (1771) a
made a distinct advance in the theory of life assurance.
His
Appeal to the Public on the Subject of the National Debt (1771)
is said to have contributed to the reestablishment of the sinking
fund. He was drawn into the current of revolutionary politics and
became a leading exponent of their ideas. His Observations on
the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and
the Justice and Policy of the War with America made him famous
in two continents. The preface to the first edition was dated
8 February, that to the fifth edition 12 March, 1776. Additional
Observations on the same subject appeared in 1777, and a General
Introduction and Supplement to the two tracts in 1778. The
revolution in France was the occasion for A Discourse on the
Love of our Country, delivered on Nov. 4, 1789; and this he
closed with a Nunc dimittis: ‘After sharing in the benefits of one
Revolution, I have been spared to be a witness to two other Revo-
lutions, both glorious. ' This Discourse had the further distinction
of provoking Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.
But, famous as his political partisanship made him at the time,
Price has a better title to be remembered for his first work,
A Review of the Principal Questions in Morals (1757; 3rd edn,
revised and enlarged, 1787).
a


## p. 345 (#371) ############################################

Price and Priestley
345
Price has the mathematician's interest in intellectual concepts
and his power of dealing with abstractions. In philosophy, he is a
successor of Cudworth and Clarke, and the theories of knowledge
of both Locke and Hume are attacked at the roots. The under-
standing or reason (he argues) has its own ideas, for which it does
not depend upon sense-impression. Necessity, possibility, identity,
cause are instances of such abstract ideas. They are 'intelligible
objects' discovered by the eye of the mind. ' Reason is thus 'the
source of new ideas'; and among them are the ideas of right and
wrong; these are simple ideas and perceived by an immediate
'intuition of the understanding: 'morality is a branch of neces-
sary truth. ' The system which Price bases on this view has become,
more than any other, the type of modern intuitional ethics.
6
6
Joseph Priestley had many points of sympathy with Price. They
belonged to the same profession--the unitarian ministry—and they
were prominent on the same side in the revolutionary politics of
the day. But, in spite of this similarity and of their personal
friendship, they represent different attitudes of mind. Price was
a mathematician, familiar with abstract ideas, and an intellectualist
in philosophy. Priestley was a chemist, busied in experiments, a
convinced disciple of the empirical philosophy and a supporter of
materialism. He was the author of The History and present State
of Electricity (1767), and, afterwards, of numerous papers and
treatises on chemical subjects, which recorded the results of his
original investigations and have established his fame as a man of
science. He came early under the influence of Hartley and pub-
lished a simplification of his book-omitting the doctrine of
vibrations and laying stress solely on the principle of the asso-
ciation of ideas; but he rejected Hartley's view of mind as an
immaterial principle and held that the powers termed mental are
the result of such an organical structure as that of the brain. '
His philosophical views were expressed and defended in Disqui-
sitions relating to Matter and Spirit (1777), in The Doctrine of
Philosophical Necessity (1777) and in A Free Discussion (1778) on
these topics with Price; and he also published (1774) An Exami-
nation of the doctrines of Reid and others of the new school of
Scottish philosophers. Of greater interest than these, however, is
the short Essay on the First Principles of Government (1768).
This forms a contrast to the a priori arguments in which Price
delighted-although its practical tendency is the same. It pro-
pounds 'one general idea,' namely, 'that all people live in
6


## p. 346 (#372) ############################################

346
Philosophers
society for their mutual advantage,' and draws the conclusion
that their happiness is 'the great standard by which every
thing relating to that state must finally be determined. ' Priestley
thus set the example, which Bentham followed, of taking utili-
tarian considerations for the basis of a philosophical radicalism,
instead of the dogmas about natural rights common with other
revolutionary thinkers of the period. He did not anticipate Bentham
in using the famous utilitarian formula (as he is often said to have
done”), but he did precede him in taking the happiness of the
majority as the test in every political question, and he made it
easier for Bentham to use the same standard in judging private
conduct.
In a somewhat similar way, the exhaustive analyses of Tucker
led to the theological utilitarianism of William Paley, sometime
fellow of Christ's college, Cambridge, and senior wrangler in 1763.
Paley was not a writer of marked originality. If, in his Principles
of Moral and Political Philosophy (1785), he owed much to
Tucker, in his View of the Evidences of Christianity (1794), he
depended on the Criterion (1752) of John Douglas, bishop of
Salisbury--a reply to Hume's argument against miracles—and on
Nathaniel Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History (1723—55);
and, in his Natural Theology (1804), he drew much material from
John Ray's The Wisdom of God manifested in the Works of the
Creation (1691), from William Derham's Physico-Theology (1713)
and from the work of the Dutchman Nieuwentyt, which had been
translated into English in 1730 as The Religious Philosopher.
His Horæ Paulino (1790) is said to be the most original, and to
have been the least successful, of his publications. These four
books form a consistent system. Probably, no English writer has
ever excelled Paley in power of marshalling arguments or in
clearness of reasoning ; and these merits have given some of his
works a longer life as academic text-books than their other
merits can justify. Paley was, essentially, a man of his time and
his views were its views, though expressed with a skill which was
all his own.
In his Moral Philosophy, there is no trace of the vacillation at
critical points which marks most of his empirical predecessors. The
only criticism to which it lies open is that morality vanishes when
reduced to a calculation of selfish interests. A man's own happiness
is always his motive; he can seek the general happiness only when
I See ante, vol. IX, p. 302 note.


## p. 347 (#373) ############################################

Paley. Thomas Reid
347
that way of acting is made for his own happiness also; and this
can be done only by the rewards and punishments of a lawgiver.
Locke distinguished three different sorts of law, and Paley followed
him rather closely. But the law of honour is insufficient, as having
little regard to the general happiness; and the law of the land is
inadequate for it omits many duties as not fit objects for compulsion,
and it permits many crimes because incapable of definition; there
remains, therefore, only the law of Scripture (that is, of God) which,
alone, is obviously sufficient. Hence, the famous definition, ‘Virtue
is the doing good to mankind, in obedience to the will of God, and
for the sake of everlasting happiness. '
This conclusion leads up to the argument of his later works.
His Horce Paulince and Evidences have to demonstrate the credi-
bility of the New Testament writings and the truth of the Christian
revelation; and this position assumes the existence of God which,
in his Natural Theology, he proves from the marks of design in
the universe and, in particular, in the human body. In these works,
we see how complete is the shifting of interest to which reference
has been previously made'. Attention is concentrated on the
question of external evidences, and the content of religion is almost
entirely overlooked. God is the superhuman watchmaker who has
put the world-machine together with surprising skill, and inter-
venes miraculously, on rare occasions, when the works are getting
out of order. Paley developed a familiar analogy with unequalled
impressiveness; he should not be blamed for failing to anticipate
the effect upon his argument which has been produced by the
biological theory of natural selection; but he did not pause to
examine the underlying assumptions of the analogy which he
worked out; he had no taste for metaphysics; and his mind moved
easily only within the range of the scientific ideas of his own day.
a
The most powerful reply to Hume-indeed, the only com-
petent attempt to refute his philosophy as a whole-came from
a group of scholars in Aberdeen who had formed themselves
into a philosophical society. Of this group, Thomas Reid, a
professor in King's college, was the most notable member, and
he was the founder of the school of Scottish philosophy known
as the commonsense school. With him were associated George
Campbell and James Beattie', professors (the former afterwards
principal) in Marischal college, as well as other men of mark in
1 See ante, vol. IX, p. 289.
? As to Beattie's poetry of. chap. VII, pp. 154 f. , ante.


## p. 348 (#374) ############################################

348
Philosophers
their day. The earliest contribution to the controversy-Campbell's
Dissertation on Miracles (1763)-dealt with a side issue; but it is
of interest for its examination of the place of testimony in know-
ledge; whereas experience (it is argued) leads to general truths
and is the foundation of philosophy, testimony is the foundation
of history, and it is capable of giving absolute certainty. Campbell's
later work, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776), contains much
excellent psychology. Beattie's Essay on the Nature and Im-
mutability of Truth (1770) is not a work of originality or of
distinction; but it is a vigorous polemic; it brought him great
temporary fame, and he has been immortalised by the art of
Reynolds as serenely clasping his book whilst Hume and other
apostles of error are being hurled into limbo. About the same
time, James Oswald, a Perthshire clergyman, published An
Appeal to Common Sense in behalf of Religion (1766—72).
Reid, Beattie and Oswald were placed together by Priestley
for the purpose of his Examination; and the same collocation
of names was repeated by Kant; but it is entirely unjust to
Reid.
Reid's Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of
Common Sense was published in 1764 ; shortly afterwards, he
removed to Glasgow, to fill the chair vacated by Adam Smith.
His later and more elaborate works—Essays on the Intellectual
Powers of Man and Essays on the Active Powers of Man-
appeared in 1785 and 1788 respectively. In his philosophical
work, Reid has the great merit of going to the root of the matter,
and he is perfectly fair-minded in his criticism. He admits the
validity of Hume's reasonings; he does not appeal to the vulgar
against his conclusions ; but he follows the argument back to its
premises and tests the truth of these premises. This is his chief
.
claim to originality. He finds that the sceptical results of Hume
are legitimate inferences from the ideal theory' which Locke took
over from Descartes, and he puts to himself the question, what
evidence have I for this doctrine, that all the objects of my
knowledge are ideas in my own mind ? ' He points out (what is
undoubtedly true) that neither Locke nor Berkeley nor Hume
produced any evidence for the assumption. They started with
.
the view that the immediate object of knowledge is something in
the mind called ideas; and they were consequently unable to
prove the existence of anything outside the mind or even of mind
itself. 'Ideas,' says Reid, seem to have something in their nature
6
6


## p. 349 (#375) ############################################

6
6
The Principles of Commonsense 349
unfriendly to other existences. ' He solves the difficulty by denying
the existence of ideas. There are no such 'images of external
‘
things' in the mind, but sensation is accompanied by an act of
perception, and the object of perception is the real external
thing.
Hume had said that his difficulties would vanish if our percep-
tions inhered in something simple and individual, or if the mind
perceived some real connection among them; and Reid proposes
a positive theory of knowledge which will give the required assur-
ance on this point. Every sensation is accompanied by a ‘natural
and original judgment' which refers the sensation to mind as its
act. We do not need, first of all, to get the two things 'mind and
'sensation and then to connect them; 'one of the related things-
to wit sensation-suggests to us both the correlate and the relation. '
Reid's terminology is not happy. The word 'suggests' is badly
.
chosen, though he distinguishes this natural suggestion' from the
suggestion which is the result of experience and habit. And his
term 'common sense' has given rise to more serious misunder-
standings, for which he is by no means blameless.
Even his
doctrine of immediate perception is far from clear. But, if we
read him sympathetically, we may see that he had hold of a
truth of fundamental importance. The isolated impressions or
ideas with which Locke and Hume began are fictions; they do
not correspond to anything real in experience. The simplest
portion of our experience is not separate from its context in
this way; it implies a reference to mind and to an objective
order, and thus involves the relations which Reid ascribed to
'natural suggestion' or 'common sense. '
>


## p. 350 (#376) ############################################

CHAPTER XV
DIVINES
6
With the beginning of the eighteenth century, we reach a period
in English theological literature of which the character is not less
definite because there were individual writers who struggled against
it. The matter and the style alike were placid and unemotional,
rational rather than learned, tending much more to the common-
place than to the pedantic, and, above all, abhorrent of that
dangerous word, and thing, enthusiasm. Johnson's definition gives
a significant clue to the religious literature in which his con-
temporaries had been educated. Enthusiasm, in his Dictionary,
is (from Locke) 'a vain belief of private revelation, a vain con-
fidence of divine favour,' to which even the nonconformists, if one
may judge by the subjects of their books, had, in the early
eighteenth century, abandoned all special claim; and, also, it im-
plied, in Johnson's own view, 'heat of imagination' and 'violence
of passion. ' From this, the main current of theological writing,
for more than fifty years, ran conspicuously away. The mystics,
such as William Law, as has been shown in an earlier chapter",
were strange exceptions, rari nantes in gurgite vasto of this
decorous self-restraint or complacency. It was not till count
Zinzendorf and the Moravians completed the impression which
A Serious Call had made on the heart of John Wesley that the
literature of religion received a new impetus and inspiration ; and
the old school fought long and died hard. It was not till the word
enthusiasm could be used in their condign praise that English
theologians began to feel again something of the fire and poetry of
their subject, and, once more, to scale its heights and sound its
depths. And yet, as we say this, we are confronted by evident
1 See vol. ix, chap. XII, ante, and cf. Byrom's poem 'Enthusiasm,' with introduction
on the use of the word, in The Poems of John Byrom, ed. Ward, A. W. , vol. 11 (1895).
See, also, ibid. vol. III (1912), p. 113 and note.


## p. 351 (#377) ############################################

Samuel Johnson. Atterbury 351
exceptions. No one can deny the power of Butler’s writing, what-
ever it may be the fashion to assert as to the depth of his thought;
and, while there was fire enough in Atterbury, in Wilson there
was certainly the delicate aroma of that intimate sincerity which
has in all literature an irresistible charm. Some earlier writers
may be left aside, such as Richard Cumberland, who, though a
bishop, was rather a philosopher than a theologian, and Samuel
Johnson, the Ben Jochanan of Dryden, whose divinity was not
more than an excrescence on his fame as a whig pamphleteer who
suffered excessively for his opinions. His manner of writing was
unquestionably savage. Julian the Apostate: Being a Short
Account of his Life; the sense of the Primitive Christians about
his Succession; and their Behaviour towards him. Together with
a comparison of Popery and Paganism (1682), is more vehement
and obnoxious than most of those bitter attacks on James duke
of York with which the press groaned during the last years of
Charles II ; yet its author hardly deserved degradation from the
priesthood, the pillory and whipping from Newgate to Tyburn.
As the chaplain of Lord William Russell, Johnson might be ex-
pected to speak boldly: and his writing was full of sound and
fury, as a characteristic sentence a solitary one, be it observed
- from his Reflections on the History of Passive Obedience may
show.
I have reason to enter a just Complaint against the pretended Church-of-
England Men of the two last Reigns, who not only left me the grinning
Honour of maintaining the establish'd Doctrine of the Church all alone,
(which I kept alive, till it pleased God to make it a means of our Deliverance,
with the perpetual hazard of my own life for many years, and with suffering
Torments and Indignitys worse than Death) but also beside this, were very
zealous in running me down, and very officious in degrading me, as an
A postate from the Church of England for this very Service: While at the
same time, they themselves were making their Court with their own Renegado
Doctrine of Passive Obedience; and wearing out all Pulpits with it, as if it
had been, not only the First and Great Commandment, but the Second too;
and cramming it down the reluctant throats of dying Patriots, as the Terms
of their Salvation.
We may begin the tale with Francis Atterbury. He was born
in 1663, and his upbringing, at the quiet Buckinghamshire rectory
of Milton Keynes, by a father who had been suspect of disloyalty
for his compliance with the commonwealth and, probably, atoned
for it by an exaggerated attachment to the restored Stewarts, was
in the strictest principles of the establishment in church and state.
A Westminster boy and student of Christ Church, he became pro-
minent among the scholars of his day, and his contribution to the


## p. 352 (#378) ############################################

352
Divines
6
Phalaris controversy made him famous. He took holy orders in
1687, and, before long, reached high preferment. Soon after the
beginning of the century, he was archdeacon of Totnes and
chaplain in ordinary to queen Anne. He became dean of Carlisle
(1704), of Christ Church (1712) and of Westminster and bishop
of Rochester (1713). Seven years later, he was imprisoned in the
Tower, without much evidence against him, for having been con-
cerned in a plot to restore the Stewarts. Banishment followed,
and he definitely threw in his lot with the exiled family. He
lived till 1732. For fifty years, he was an influential, though not
a voluminous, writer. Politically, he was vehement; in religion,
he was wholehearted ; and the two interests seemed to him in-
separable. What weighed most with him in politics, truly says his
latest biographer', was 'the consequence that the Whigs' lati-
tudinarianism would have, and as a matter of fact did have, on
the Church of England. He was, indeed, from first to last, a
'church of England man,' of the type which the sunshine of queen
Anne's favour ripened. The Hanoverian type of protestantism
was uncongenial to bim : be distrusted and feared its rationalising
influence. In his view, as he said in the dedication of his sermons
to Trelawny (famous as one of the seven bishops), 'the Fears of
Popery were scarce remov'd, when Heresy began to diffuse its
Venom. ' Thus, he came to the position which Addison expressed
in an epigram, but which, perhaps, was not so inconsistent as it
seemed—that the Church of England will always be in danger
till it has a Popish king for its defender. '
If his contribution to the Phalaris controversy best exhibits
his wit, and his political writing his trenchant diction, his sermons
may, perhaps, be regarded as his permanent contributions to
English literature. There is no conspicuous merit in their style
or in their argument; but they are lucid, argumentative and,
on occasion, touched by real feeling. Perhaps, his sincerity never
appeared to more advantage than in the quiet pathos of his
Discourse on the death of the Lady Cutts (1698), the opening
passage of which gave at least a hint to Sterne for a very famous
6
sermon.
Much the same may be said of Atterbury's friend George
Smalridge, who succeeded him as dean of Christ Church.
Smalridge was a less active Jacobite and a less vehement
i See vol. ix, chap. XIII, p. 333, ante.
Beeching, H. C. , Francis Atterbury (1909), p. 263.


## p. 353 (#379) ############################################

Smalridge. Wake
353
man, and died peaceably, though in disgrace, as bishop of
Bristol. He
toasted the Pretender in the privacy of his rooms at Christ Church, but gave
him no other support; recognising, no doubt, that anything but a Platonic
affection was incompatible with the Church principles of non-resistance to
established authority, of which he and Atterbury had been among the fore-
most champions.
Some of this quietude gives tone to his sermons, which Johnson
praised for their elegant style; and Addison wrote in 1718
he is to me the most candid and agreeable of all the bishops. '
Dedicated to Caroline princess of Wales—who, as queen, had a
striking talent for the discovery of clever clergymen- and produced
in print for an extraordinarily large number of subscribers, the
sermons are more remarkable for sound sense than for eloquence
or argument. The English is pure and unaffected ; Addison, per-
haps, is the model; but his excellence is far from being attained.
Smalridge was indignant when some one thought to flatter him by
suggesting that he wrote A Tale of a Tub: a very moderate
knowledge of his style should have convinced the most obtuse
that he could not have written the Tale if he would. In truth, he
is typical of his period. The theological writings of the day had
none of the learning, or the attempt at it, which had marked
the Caroline epoch; they had no charm of language, no eloquence
or passion. The utmost they aimed at was lucidity, and, when
this was achieved, we are left wondering whether what could be
80 expressed was worth expressing at all. Atterbury had stood
alone against the benumbing influence of Tillotson.
It needed controversy to stir the placid contentment of the early
Hanoverian dignitaries. And, of controversy, vehement enough,
they had their share. If Sacheverell did not contribute anything
of value to English literature, the same cannot be said of Wake
or even, perhaps, of Hoadly. In 1715, William Wake succeeded
Tenison as archbishop. His predecessor had possessed a certain
skill in anti-Roman controversy, and he had the very rare accom-
plishment of being able to write a good collect; but Wake was
altogether his superior. In history, his translation of the Apostolic
Fathers and his very important contributions to the discussion on
the powers of convocation give him a place in the short list of
English archbishops who have been learned men. Nor was his
learning anglican only; he was better known in Germany and
France, as well as in the eastern church, than any of his successors
till quite modern times. As a controversialist, he was lucid and
E. L. X.
CH. XV.
23


## p. 354 (#380) ############################################

354
Divines
graceful; but when he hit he could hit hard. The convocation
controversy, though it employed the powers of Atterbury, Burnet,
Hody, Kennett and Matthew Hutton of Aynho, hardly belongs to
the history of literature. But it gave great opportunity for the
display of that kind of antiquarian knowledge in which many of the
English clergy of the time excelled. Few of those who joined
in it were not, at the same time, writers of eminence in their
own fields : Wake was distinguished for his studies of the
Apostolic Fathers, Hody as a Hebraist, Kennett, in that admirable
book The Parochial Antiquities of Ambrosden, a very model for
local historians. And the convocation controversy was soon
merged in the discussion as to the orthodoxy of certain eccle-
siastics, some prominent, some undistinguished, which began with
Hoadly and his views of church authority.
Benjamin Hoadly was a clergyman in whom the objectionable
features of Gilbert Burnet were exaggerated to the verge of
caricature. He was a whig and a follower of the government
in power first of all, a controversialist in consequence, and only
after that was he an ecclesiastic. As a political writer, he opposed
Atterbury and Blackall in 1709—10; on the Hanoverian succession
being accomplished, he was rewarded by the see of Bangor,
which he hardly ever visited. In 1717, his famous sermon entitled
The Nature of the Kingdom or Church of Christ caused the acid
controversy which was named after him; A Preservative against
the Principles and Practices of the Nonjurors, a treatise published
by him in 1716, called forth the drastic criticism of William Law;
and A Plain Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament
(1735), the massive treatise of Waterland on the doctrine of the
Eucharist. He seemed to live for dispute and preferment; and
he accepted both with the placid dignity which is inimitably
rendered in Hogarth's immortal portrait. As a writer, he carries
the sobriety of Tillotson to the extreme of pompous dulness; it is
safe to say that the volumes of his sermons and other argumen-
tative works which line many old libraries have rested for a cen-
tury and a half undisturbed by any reader's hand. Their manner,
which is devoid of any original touch, contrasts strangely with
their matter. Hoadly's theory of churchmanship reduced itself to
pure individualism tempered by toleration. He was a conscientious
advocate for the repeal of the whole range of test acts. He was,
in fact, a much better thinker in matters of state than in those
which belonged more directly to his own profession. From under


## p. 355 (#381) ############################################

Hoadly. The Nonjurors 355
the cloud of words and the skilful tangle of qualifications in which
his thought is enveloped, there emerges the certainty that he had
no coherent idea of a religious society at all. If he had points of
affinity with Thomas Arnold, he is, perhaps, not very far away from
the reforming theologians or even the theorists of the Middle
Age. Church and state are one in his mind; but it is the state
which turns church communion into something quite vague, general
and ultimately unmeaning; yet he has not risen to the idea of a
federation; he remains in a conception of essential fluidity. On
the other hand, his advocacy of toleration, on true principles, was,
if not an advance in theory on the position of several earlier
English writers, of different parties, at least one in actual prac-
tice, before whig statesmen as well as anglican bishops were pre-
pared to accept it. Hoadly became bishop of Winchester in 1734
and held the see till his death in 1761. It cannot be said that he
rendered any service to the church, and the controversies of which
he was the centre had no small share in that eclipse of her literary
glory, which was the conspicuous characteristic of the Hanoverian,
as opposed to the Stewart, age.
If Hoadly typifies the comfortable Erastianism of the leaders of
the establishment, William Law's enthusiasm and depth were
reproduced in not a few of the later nonjurors. It was some
time before the inspiring self-sacrifice of Sancroft and Hickes and
their colleagues died down into the sordid insignificance which
Johnson professed to have witnessed. The spirit of literary
audacity which had fled the established church was still to be
found among the nonjurors. The two Thomas Wagstaffes—the
father (1645—1712) nonjuring bishop of Ipswich, the son (1692–
1770) English chaplain to the banished Stewarts-were writers of
considerable power. The Vindication, by the pen of the elder,
of Charles l's authorship of Eikon Basilike, followed by A
Defence of the Vindication, is a work of considerable, though
not of convincing, force. Both were noted as antiquaries, and
belong, indeed, to the school, as we may call it, of Carte, Leslie,
Rawlinson and Hearne. Thomas Deacon, again, was a scholar
of no mean order with a range of theological knowledge unusual
in his day. By profession a physician, he was ordained by the
nonjuring bishop Gandy in 1716, and consecrated, probably
in 1733, by Archibald Campbell, bishop of Aberdeen, whom
Dr Johnson described as 'very curious and inquisitive but
credulous. The nonjurors (as has been seen in the case of
23-2


## p. 356 (#382) ############################################

356
Divines
Hickes) were close students of liturgiology, and the revised
communion office of the 'Usagers,' with the Compleat Devotions
of 1734, bear witness to the accuracy of Deacon's study and in-
fluenced the important liturgies of the Scottish and American
churches of the present day.
As may seem natural for men who found themselves compelled
to live more and more apart from the general religious and even
the social life of their day, the nonjurors turned to antiquarianism
as a solace for their seclusion as well as a support for their
doctrines. The older race of those who withdrew from com-
munion with the national church were often men of great learn-
ing as well as steadfast principle. Henry Dodwell is a typical
example. He held a fellowship at Trinity college, Dublin, but
resigned it, being unwilling to take holy orders. He then resided
in England, in London or Oxford at first, in later years in Berk-
shire. From 1688 to 1691, he was Camden professor of history at
Oxford. He was deprived because he would not take the oaths;
but William III is said to have declared that he would not
make him a martyr—'He has set his heart on being one and
I have set mine on disappointing him. ' Hearne considered him
'the greatest scholar in Europe when he died,' and even such an
opponent as White Kennett respected his learning. His writings
are partly 'occasional' and vehement, partly deliberate and
scholastic. To the former class belongs what he wrote about
the schism; to the latter, his work on Irenaeus and on ancient
history in general. It cannot be said that he left any permanent
impression on English literature or scholarship, though his writings
were long remembered and utilised by lesser men. His friends
Nelson, Hearne, Cherry and the rest preserved his memory in
their circle of devout ecclesiasticism. But the whole mass of the
nonjurors' literary output, even work so good as that of Brett and
Leslie, belongs to a backwater in English letters. One fragrant
survival, however, may be mentioned here for its exquisite and
simple pathos, A Pattern for Young Students in the University,
set forth in the Life of Mr Ambrose Bonwicke, sometime Scholar
of St John's College in Cambridge (1729)". It is the record of a
young nonjuror's life, told by his father, in an unaffected, but
deeply touching, manner which no man of letters of the day
could have surpassed. One is tempted to put beside it, for their
record of devotion to duty in circumstances very different, the
Journals of the Scottish bishop Robert Forbes (in 1762 and
· Edited by Mayor, J. E. B. , Cambridge, 1870.


## p. 357 (#383) ############################################

Bingham. Thomas Sherlock
357
1770)', a divine whose 'primitive piety' and ecclesiastical prin-
ciples were supported by the same doctrines of church obedience
as directed the life of the young Cambridge scholar. Men such
as these must in all ages live remote from public haunt. Joseph
Bingham, the greatest ecclesiastical antiquary of his time and for
long after it, was incessantly active as a writer, but (save that he
was unjustly stigmatised as a heretic and had to resign his fellow-
ship at Oxford in consequence) was entirely neglected by those
whose business it should have been to know what scholars wrote.
His Origines Ecclesiasticae, or The Antiquities of the Christian
Church (published in successive volumes from 1708 to 1722) is
a mine of learning, to which writers everywhere had recourse till
the Cambridge scholars of the later nineteenth century began
the critical rewriting of the history of the early church. Bingham,
it may be said, did for church history what Pearson did for the
creed. He showed what it meant at the time of its beginning and
he illustrated its growth by a store of learning which none in his
own time could rival, and few since have surpassed. At the
beginning of the eighteenth century it was, certainly, in learn-
ing rather than in pure letters that the clerus Angliae preserved
its reputation.
>
Returning from this interesting by-path, we find the main field
of theology in possession of writers of scarcely a single literary
merit. The Annual Register, when it commemorated Hoadly on
his death, allowed him the virtue that, in all his controversies
with his brethren (‘and no one surely ever held more'), he never
lost his equanimity of temper or descended to any railing ac-
cusation. In the same way, Thomas Sherlock, bishop of London,
was praised in that
he too had his controversies, and those carried on with warmth and spirit, but
without any injury to his temper, or any interruption to his thoughts and
mind.
He
was, indeed, an opponent of Hoadly even more persistent than
Law. He was chairman of the committee of the lower house of
convocation which considered the book that was the fons et origo
mali ; and, though, owing to the suspension of the sessions of con-
vocation, the report was never published, its substance, no doubt,
appeared in Remarks on the Bishop of Bangor's treatment of the
Clergy and Convocations, issued by him anonymously in 1717,
1 Edited by Craven, J. B. , 1876.


## p. 358 (#384) ############################################

358
Divines
and in other pamphlets. Sherlock's politics, in early life, were,
like those of his more famous father (master of the Temple and
dean of St Paul's), not above suspicion with those in power : the
wits compared the two thus :
As Sherlock the elder with jure divine
Did not comply till the battle of Boyne;
So Sherlock the younger still made it a question
Which side he should take till the battle of Preston.
But, in later life, he was a steady supporter of Walpole, and his
politics even more than his preaching brought him to high place.
He was appointed bishop of London in 1748, and it is said that he
had declined even higher preferment. Before this, nearly all his
important literary work had been done. He had engaged in the
deist controversy in 1725, and his Trial of the Witnesses of the
Resurrection of Jesus (1729) was a very notable apologetic, on
quite modern lines, in answer to Woolston. Next to Butler, he
was the most powerful opponent, and the most rational, whom the
deists encountered. His last work, which enjoyed the popularity
of a modern novel, was A Letter to the Clergy and People of
London and Westminster on occasion of the late Earthquake
(1750). Nichols, the bookseller, tells that 100,000 copies were sold
in less than a month; and the trenchant vigour of its denun-
ciation of vice and appeal for amendment make it still worthy of
perusal.
But books and pamphlets such as Sherlock's are at least on the
fringe of that sad class of writings which Lamb stigmatised as
biblia abiblia. We rise far above it when we come to the work
of men so different as bishop Wilson, bishop Butler and Daniel
Waterland. The three men were profoundly different. Wilson,
in much of his thought and life, was a survival of the early
seventeenth century and, indeed, of far earlier times. Waterland,
in many respects, was typical of the early eighteenth century.
Butler had affinities with the nineteenth-with Newman, for
example, and Gladstone. The life of Wilson was uneventful.
He took his degree from Trinity college, Dublin, and was or-
dained in the church of Ireland, served a Lancashire curacy,
became chaplain to the earl of Derby and preceptor to his son at
the salary of thirty pounds a year, to which was added the master-
ship of the Latham almshouse, twenty pounds more-whereupon
he had 'an income far beyond his expectations, far beyond his
wishes, except as it increased his ability to do good'-and, in


## p. 359 (#385) ############################################

Wilson.
Waterland
359
1697, was appointed by his patron to the bishopric of Sodor and
Man, in spite of his refusal. At Bishop's court, Kirk Michael,
he lived, for nearly sixty years, the life of a primitive saint, devoted
entirely to works of piety, the father of his people, not neglecting
to punish as well as to protect. His collected works were not
published till 1781 ; but many of them had long achieved a re-
markable popularity. Of the eight volumes, four contain sermons,
of a directness of appeal and simplicity of language unusual
for the time. The English is forcible and unaffected; there
are no pedantic expressions, or classical phrases, or lengthy words.
Everyone could understand what Wilson said, and everyone might
profit by it. He wrote, not to astonish, but to convince; yet the
simplicity of his manner avoids the pit of commonplace into which
such writers as Tillotson not rarely fall. No one could call the
good bishop a great writer ; but no one could call him a poor
In his Maxims and his Parochialia, he shows a knowledge
of human nature not very common among clergymen ; while his
Sacra Privata, which explains (to an intelligent reader) how
this knowledge was obtained, places him with bishop Andrewes
among the masters of English devotional literature.
one.
6
Very different is the ponderous solidity of Daniel Waterland.
He was a controversialist, a scholar and an archdeacon-callings
which tend to dryness and pomposity and seldom encourage literary
excellence. Master of Magdalene college, Cambridge, and vice-
chancellor, he was recommended, says his biographer, ‘to the
favour of the government' by his 'wise and moderate sentiments,'
but he did not attain to any great position in the church. He
preferred, it may well be, to remain an adept in university busi-
ness and a wielder of the cudgel against the heretics of his age,
among whom several, such as Biddle, Firmin and Gilbert Clerke
(to repeat the phrase used by bishop van Mildert nearly a century
ago) 'now scarcely retain a place in our recollection. ' Samuel
Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity (1712), amid all the
heavy literature which it evoked, had no more successful rival
than Waterland's Vindication of Christ's Divinity, which is almost
worthy to be placed beside the work of bishop Bull ; and this
was but one of the writings of the Cambridge scholar which dealt
with the subject. Waterland had long given attention to the
claims of semi-Arians to hold office in the church of England,
and, in a famous disputation, when he ‘kept a Divinity Act for his
Bachelor of Divinity, had had for his opponent (who was, of
a


## p. 360 (#386) ############################################

360
Divines
course, merely assuming the post of advocatus arianismi) Thomas
Sherlock,
one of the greatest ornaments of the Church, and finest writers of the age,
who gave full play to his abilities, and called forth,' says a contemporary,' all
that strength of reason of which he was the master. '
Here, in spite of a certain favour which royalty was inclined
to bestow upon Arianism, Waterland was safe from censure
by great personages of the day. His moderation appears less
favourably in his abstention from action throughout the long
period during which Bentley was unjustly suspended. His learn-
ing, on the other hand, in his treatise on the Athanasian creed, a
vindication of that much-contested symbol, which is even now not
out of date, appears in its most favourable aspect, and the book de-
served the eulogy of archbishop Dawes of York, a prelate who did
not fear, even when suspected of Jacobitism, to express his opinions :
"With great pleasure I read it,' wrote the primate of England, ‘both on
account of the subject matter of it, and the manner in which you have treated
it; the one, of the greatest importance to the Christian faith; the other, a
pattern to all writers of controversy in the great points of religion. '
In 1727, he became canon of Windsor; in 1730, vicar of Twickenham
and archdeacon of Middlesex; and he enjoyed his retirement at
Twickenham,' his visits to Cambridge and the honour of being
prolocutor of the lower house of the convocation of Canterbury,
till his death in 1740, when an opponent offered the curious testi-
mony to his merits that
notwithstanding his being a contender for the Trinity yet he was a benevolent
man, an upright Christian and a beautiful writer; exclusive of his zeal for
the Trinity, he was in everything else an excellent clergyman and an admirable
scholar.
But the most famous of his writings is, undoubtedly, his Review
of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, which was for long regarded as
the classic work of anglican theology on its subject. It is only
necessary to say of the doctrine, as stated by Waterland, that it
does not proceed beyond the qualified statement of the judicious
Hooker and would not have satisfied Andrewes, Jeremy Taylor, or
Cosin-not to mention so typical an anglican as George Herbert-
among his predecessors; still less does it rise to the views which
found expression in the notable work of John Johnson, The Un-
bloody Sacrifice. In his own words, Waterland advocates not a
sacrificial, but a federal, view of the Eucharist. As a writer, he is
lucid without being commonplace and learned without being
pedantic. His prose is better than Tillotson's, easier than Butler's;
a


## p.