History of Civilization in England, Vol. 1 of 3

by Henry Thomas Buckle

[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.

[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 2s. 6d. per 100 volumes per annum.’ Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue, vol. iii. p. 268.