serenity, without sentinels, without trepidation, as men lawfully employed in full day." In the evening all London seemed to be in flames. An attack was made on the Bank, but this was repulsed. The soldiers began to fire on the mob, particularly at Blackfriars Bridge. An outrage in Holborn, near St. Andrew's church, seems to have sobered even many of the rioters. The premises of a Roman Catholic distiller were pillaged and burnt. The great casks of raw spirits were staved in and the liquid ran down the streets, men and women and children eagerly filling vessels, or even their hands, with it. Many were killed by their excess. At length the fire reached the alcoholic stream, and many were burned while lying drunk in the street or by the falling in of the roof and walls of the distillery. In the meantime, troops had been brought into London and order was restored.

Some who ought to have known better encouraged this Anti-Popery feeling. John Wesley, for example, in the very year of the riots, published a letter to the Public Advertiser, in which occur the following "singularly unwise words": 66 Let there be as boundless a freedom in religion as any man can conceive. Yet I insist upon it that no Government not Roman Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion." Can it therefore be wondered at that the Methodists, as Horace Walpole and Sir Samuel Romilly both positively affirm, "were in England the first and most eager to fan the flame of passion which led to the disgraceful scenes which in 1780 desolated London"? It must not be inferred, however, that Wesley gave any incentive to his followers to engage in riot, though he often spoke of Roman Catholics as if in religious belief they were practically pagans. "The principles of the Church of Rome 'have a natural tendency to hinder, if not utterly destroy, the love of God.' . . . 'No Romanist can expect to be saved according to the terms of his covenant." "

AUTHORITIES.-The Thorntons figure largely in Sir J. Stephen's Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography, some of which deal with the men forming the Clapham Sect. For William Wilberforce, see Life by his sons, 3 vols. 1839, and J. C. Colquhoun's William Wilberforce, his Friends and his Times, 1866. The Cowper literature is endless. Read the monograph by Goldwin Smith in English Men of Letters Series, and Cowper's Letters, published under the editorship of Thomas Wright, 4 vols. 1904. Hutchinsonianism may be

XIII

HUTCHINSONIANISM

217

seen, in addition to the works cited in the text, in An Abstract from the Works of John Hutchinson, being a Summary of his Discoveries in Philosophy and Divinity, 2nd ed. corrected, 1755; The Integrity of the Hebrew Text and many Passages of Scripture vindicated from the Objections and Misconstructions of Mr. Kennicott, by Julius Bate, 1754; Remarks upon Dr. Benson's Sermon on the Gospel Method of Justification, by Julius Bate, 1758; The First Principles of Philosophy, 1748; The Creation the Groundwork of Revelation and Revelation the Language of Nature, 1750; The Theology and Philosophy in Cicero's "Somnium Scipionis" explained, or a Brief Attempt to demonstrate that the Newtonian System is perfectly agreeable to the Notions of the Wisest Ancients, and that Mathematical Principles are the only Sure Ones (by Bishop Horne ?), 1750 (this, of course, is a reply); The Blessing of Judah by Jacob considered: The Aera of Daniel's Weeks ascertained, by Julius Bate, 1753; Micah v. 2 and Matt. ii. 6 reconciled; with some Remarks on Dr. Hunt's Latin Oration at Oxford, 1748, and Dr. Grey's "Last Words of David," and David's numbering the People, by Julius Bate, 1749; The Use and Intent of Prophecy, and History of the Fall cleared from the Objections in Dr. C. Middleton's Examination of the Bishop of London's Discourses concerning Them, by Julius Bate, 1750; A Defence of Mr. Hutchinson's Tenets in Philosophy and Divinity, in Answer to the Objections of Mr. Berrington, by Julius Bate, 1751; Remarks upon Mr. Warburton's " Remarks," tending to show that the Ancients knew that there was a Future State; and that the Jews were not under an Equal Providence, by Julius Bate, 1745; Remarks on Dr. Sharp's Pieces on the words Elohim and Berith, by Benjamin Holloway, 1751; The Evidence for Christianity contained in the Hebrew words Aleim and Berit, by James Moody, 1752. Consult also the articles in the Dict. Nat. Biog. Reference should be made to Hutchinson's own Works, 12 vols.

FOURTH PERIOD, 1789-1800

CHAPTER XIV

GENERAL INFLUENCES-THE GROWTH OF TOLERATION

THE present period only embraces twelve years, but they were extremely important years in the Church's history. It is a curious fact that the eighteenth century begins and ends with brief periods of great activity, roughly speaking of about the same length, on each side of a long period of stagnation. But it should be added that the first active period began long before the first years, and the second lasted long after the close, of the eighteenth century. The change which marked the closing years of the century is due to a variety of causes, by far the most important of which was the influence of the French Revolution in England. The influence may be seen writ large in the revulsion of conduct it created in one of the noblest spirits and one of the most splendid intellects which the eighteenth century ever produced. Up to 1789 Edmund Burke (1729-1797) had been the courageous and consistent friend of the oppressed in all quarters of the world. He had been virtually the trainer of the liberal leader, Charles James Fox, who said that he owed more to Burke than to any living man. He had been on the side of toleration for all who accepted the broad outlines of the Christian faith, strongly supporting the Bill for the relief of Protestant dissenters in 1773, and equally strongly the Bill for the relaxation of the penal laws against the Roman Catholics in 1778. He

Edmund
Burke.

CHAP. XIV

EDMUND BURKE

219

persistently strove to redress the grievances of his poor countrymen, the Irish, who were, he thought, harshly treated by the dominant faction. He advocated with all the warmth and vehemence of his nature the cause of the natives of India against Warren Hastings, whom he regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a corrupt tyrant whose oppressions tarnished the British rule. In 1780 he made an attempt to mitigate the evils of the slave trade; in 1788 he declared in Parliament that he desired its total abolition, and in 1789 praised highly the speech with which William Wilberforce introduced his resolutions on the subject.

In short, up to 1789, he had always lent his powerful aid to the cause of liberty, so far, that is, as he could do so consistently with his strong churchmanship, which was far more enlightened than that of most of his contemporaries. But he always drew the line at infidelity, was not friendly towards the dissenters, had no sympathy with the clergy who desired relief from subscription to the Church's formularies, and opposed therefore the Feathers' Tavern petition in 1772. These very intelligible limitations to his liberalism should be borne in mind in judging the opinions that he formed in 1789, and which he eagerly inculcated during the remaining eight years of his life. His inconsistency was apparent rather than real. He foresaw sooner and more clearly than most men what the results of the French Revolution would be. "I am for liberty," he said, "but for liberty only in the guise of order"; and he foresaw in its early stages that the French Revolution meant disorder, and disorder in that which he ever regarded as the highest region of all, the region of religion. So while others, with whom he had hitherto acted, were sympathising with the French people, Burke saw the real drift of the movement and acted accordingly. Though a true friend of the people, he was never an anarchist; though a true friend of toleration, he was ever a sworn foe of irreligion.

Was he wrong in thinking that anarchy and irreligion. would be the result of the great upheaval in France, and in fearing that the shock would be felt in England Burke and also? At any rate, he did think and fear this from the French the autumn of 1789, and the intensity of his conviction grew as the movement developed. Accordingly, in

Revolution.

March 1790, when his friend and disciple, Charles James Fox, proposed the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, Burke spoke against the motion which he had formerly supported, on the ground that "it was not a time to weaken the safeguards of the Established Church"; and eight months later appeared his Reflections on the French Revolution, the effects of which were immediate and far-reaching. The little book passed through eleven editions within a year, and of course affected different people in different ways. The Whigs were filled with dismay, as it implied the defection of a shining light from their party; and one of their chief men, Sir James Mackintosh, answered it in April 1791, by his Vindiciae Gallicae, the efficiency of which is discounted by the fact that in 1800 the writer entirely recanted its sentiments, declaring that he now "abhorred, abjured, and for ever renounced the French Revolution, with all its sanguinary history, its abominable principles, and for ever execrable leaders, and hoped to be able to wipe off the disgrace of having been once betrayed into an approbation of that conspiracy against God and man.”

Burke was also answered by Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man, but that book helped rather than hindered the acceptance of Burke's doctrines among those who valued Christianity. Burke could not have had a better ally than Paine, whose vindication of the French Revolution was the best proof that Burke's theory of its tendency was correct. Paine's book had an enormous circulation, and was vigorously pushed by the societies which had been formed to spread the doctrines of the Revolution. The work is clever, daring, and trenchant, but shallow. He treated prescription as being merely an unreasonable prejudice, and therefore not capable of being regarded as a sound basis for the existing social order. Government could only be by election or by hereditary succession, and Paine dismissed the idea of heredity in government as inherently absurd. There was nothing in the nature of things to justify a man being a ruler simply because he was his father's son. Only election could secure the wisest rulers. The alternative method might secure the most stupid. It led, moreover, to a claim on the part of the rulers to be irresponsible, and Paine keenly thrust the point home: "A