No More Learning

This underlying conception and all the author's most striking
ideas are to be found in the treatise completed in 1640—when politi-
cal troubles were obviously at hand, but, as yet, no personal danger
threatened. In logic and lucidity, this earlier treatise is not surpassed
by the later work, though it fails to give the same constant impression
of reality. It is a text-book such as philosophers have sometimes
written for statesmen, to instruct them in the principles of their craft;
and it did not entirely escape the usual fate of such efforts. Before
Hobbes set about writing it, the fundamental idea of a philosophy had
taken root in his mind; and this idea he owed to the new mechanical
theory, and, in particular, to Galileo's teaching. Motion, he came to
think, was the one reality; all other things are but ‘fancies, the off-
spring of our brains. He did not now, or, indeed, afterwards, work
out a mechanical theory of the physical universe, as Descartes, for
instance, was doing. But he had a bolder—if an impossible-project.
Descartes restricted mechanism to the extended world, maintained
the independence of mental existence and held the latter to be of
all things most certain. Hobbes did not thus limit the applications
of his new idea. He thought he could pass from external motions
to the internal motions of men,' and, thence, to sovereignty and
justice. This is his own account, and it agrees with what we know
otherwise. Neither the mechanical theory, nor the psychology, is
an afterthought introduced to bolster up a foregone political con-
clusion. They have their roots too deep in Hobbes's mind. It is
true, the desired transitions could not logically be made, and
Hobbes found out the difficulty later. But, when civil disturbance
forced his hand and led to the elaboration of his ethical and
political doctrine, this doctrine was found to be in harmony with
the idea from which his view of the universe started. The external
and mechanical character of the political theory is an indication of
its unreality, but it bears witness, also, to the unity of conception
that dominates the whole philosophy.
6


## p. 293 (#309) ############################################

Leviathan
293
All things, according to Hobbes, ‘have but one universal cause,
which is motion. But, for him, as for other writers of his day,
'
'motion' is not a merely abstract conception; it includes move-
ment of masses or of particles. From geometry, which treats of
abstract motion, he thus passes, without a break, to physics, and,
thence, to moral philosophy; for the 'motions of the mind' have
physical causes. And, by this synthetical method, proceeding from
principles, we 'come to the causes and necessity of constituting
commonwealths. This method he always kept in view, and it gives
unity to his theory. But he never carried out the impossible task
of applying it in detail. He admits that there is another and an
easier way:
For the causes of the motions of the mind are known, not only by ratio-
cination, but also by the experience of every man that takes the pains to
observe those motions within himself.
If he will but examine his own mind,' he will find
that the appetites of men and the passions of their minds are such that, unless
they be restrained by some power, they will always be making war upon one
another.
By adopting this method, Hobbes thinks he can appeal to each
man's experience to confirm the truth of his doctrine.
Leviathan is divided into four parts, which treat, respectively, of
Man, of a Commonwealth, of a Christian Commonwealth and of the
Kingdom of Darkness. Man comes first, for he is both the matter
and the artificer of the Leviathan; and, at the outset, he is considered
alone, as an individual thing played upon by external bodies; 'for
there is no conception in a man's mind which hath not at first,
totally or by parts, been begotten upon the organs of sense. '
Diverse external motions produce diverse motions in us; and, in
reality, there is nothing else; 'but their appearance to us is fancy,'
though this name is commonly restricted to 'decaying sense. ' The
thoughts thus raised succeed one another in an order sometimes
controlled by a 'passionate thought, sometimes not. By
the most noble and profitable invention of speech, names have been given to
thoughts, whereby society and science have been made possible, and also
absurdity: for words are wise men's counters, they do but reckon by them;
but they are the money of fools.
Reason is but reckoning; addition and subtraction are its pro-
cesses; logic is 'computation. So far, man is regarded as if he
'
were a thinking being only. But he is also active. The internal
motions set up by the action of objects upon the senses become
reactions upon the external world; and these reactions are all of
6


## p. 294 (#310) ############################################

294 Hobbes and Contemporary Philosophy
the nature of tendencies towards that which helps the vital
motion,' that is, ministers to the preservation of the individual, or
tendencies away from things of an opposite nature. Thus, we have
appetite or desire for certain things, and these we are said to love,
and we call them good. In a similar way, we have aversion from
certain other things, which we hate and call evil. Pleasure is
'the appearance or sense of good’; displeasure, “the appearance or
sense of evil. Starting from these definitions, Hobbes proceeds to
describe the whole emotional and active nature of man as a
consistent scheme of selfishness. The following characteristic
summary comes from Elements of Law :
The comparison of the life of man to a race, though it holdeth not in every
point, yet it holdeth so well for this our purpose, that we may thereby both
see and remember almost all the passions before mentioned. But this race we
must suppose to have no other goal, nor other garland, but being foremost;
and in it: To endeavour, is appetite. To be remiss, is sensuality. To consider
them behind, is glory. To consider them before, humility. To lose ground
with looking back, vain glory. To be holden, hatred. To turn back, repen-
tance. To be in breath, hope. To be weary, despair. To endeavour to over-
take the next, emulation. To supplant or overthrow, envy. To resolve to
break through a stop foreseen, courage. To break through a sudden stop,
anger. To break through with ease, magnanimity. To lose ground by little
hindrances, pusillanimity. To fall on the sudden, is disposition to weep. To
see another fall, disposition to laugh. To see one out-gone whom we would
not, is pity. To see one out-go we would not, is indignation. To hold fast by
another, is to love. To carry him on that so holdeth, is charity. To hurt
one's-self for haste, is shame. Continually to be out-gone, is misery. Con-
tinually to out-go the next before, is felicity. And to forsake the course, is to
die.
Out of this contention of selfish units, Hobbes, in some way, has
to derive morality and the social order. Yet, in the state of nature
there are no rules for the race of life--not even the rule of the
strongest, for Hobbes thinks that there is little difference between
men's faculties, and, at any rate, 'the weakest has strength enough
to kill the strongest. ' Thus, for gain, for safety and for reputation
(which is a sign of power), each man desires whatever may preserve
or enrich his own life, and, indeed, by nature, 'every man has a right
to everything, even to one another's body. ' Thus, the natural state
of man is a state of war, in which 'every man is enemy to every
man. ' In this condition, as he points out, there is no place for
industry, or knowledge, or arts, or society, but only "continual fear
and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short. ' Nor, in this state, is there any difference
of right and wrong, mine and thine; ‘force and fraud are in war
the two cardinal virtues. '


## p. 295 (#311) ############################################

Leviathan
295
Hobbes betrays some hesitation in speaking of the historical
reality of this state of universal war. But the point, perhaps, is not
fundamental. What is essential is the view of human nature as so
constituted as to make every man his neighbour's enemy. The
view was not entirely new; he was not the first satirist of the
'golden age. His originality lies in the consistency of his picture
of its anarchy, and in the amazing skill with which he makes the
very misery of this state lead on to social order: the freedom of
anarchy yields at once and for ever to the fetters of power.
The transition is effected by the social contract-an instrument
familiar to medieval philosophers and jurists. So long as the state
of nature endures, life is insecure and wretched. Man cannot
improve this state, but he can get out of it; therefore, the
fundamental law of nature is to seek peace and follow it; and,
from this, emerges the second law, that, for the sake of peace, a
man should be willing to lay down his right to all things, when other
men are, also, willing to do so. From these two are derived all the
laws of nature of the moralists. The laws of nature are immutable
and eternal, says Hobbes, and, in so saying, conforms to the tradi-
tional view—but with one great difference. Hooker, who followed
the older theory, had said that the laws of nature 'bind men abso-
lutely, even as they are men, although they have never any settled
fellowship, never any solemn agreement amongst themselves. But
Hobbes holds that their authority, for any man, is not absolute; it
is strictly conditional on other men being willing to obey them; and
this requires an agreement of wills—a contract. Contracts, again,
require a power to enforce them: 'covenants of mutual trust where
there is a fear of not performance on either part are invalid’; and
the only way to obtain such a common power is for all men to give
up their rights to one man, or one assembly of men, and to acknow-
ledge his acts as their own ‘in those things which concern the
common peace and safety. This man, or assembly, will thus bear
the 'person' of the whole multitude. They have contracted with
one another to be his subjects. But the sovereign himself is under
no contract: he has rights but no duties.
From this, it follows, logically, that sovereignty cannot be limited,
divided, or forfeited. The conduct of the commonwealth in peace
and war, and the rights of subjects against one another, are decided
by the sovereign. He is sole legislator, supreme ruler and supreme
judge. And this holds, whether the sovereignty lies in one man or
in an assembly. Hobbes always maintained the superiority of
monarchy to other forms of government; but he never thought


## p. 296 (#312) ############################################

296 Hobbes and Contemporary Philosophy
that this superiority was capable of the demonstrative proof that
he claimed for his general theory. There is a story that, before
leaving Paris, Hobbes told Edward Hyde (afterwards earl of
Clarendon) that he was publishing Leviathan because he ‘had
a mind to go home. If he was serious in making the remark
reported by Clarendon, he must have been referring to the ‘Review
and Conclusion, with which the work closes, and in which he speaks
of the time at which submission to a conqueror may lawfully be
made. The book in no way modifies his earlier views on the merits
of monarchy.
A man cannot serve two masters: 'mixed government' is no
government; nor can the spiritual power be independent of the
temporal. The doctrines that every private man is judge of good
and evil actions,' and 'that whatsoever a man does against his
conscience is a sin,' are seditious and repugnant to civil society.
By living in a commonwealth, a man takes the law for his conscience.
These positions may seem to complete the political theory, and few
readers now care to pursue the matter further. But Hobbes's
commonwealth professes to be a Christian commonwealth. He
must show the place which religion occupies in it, and also expose
the errors which have led to nations being overshadowed by the
spiritual power. His theory is Erastianism pushed to its extremest
limits. The inner life-the true home of religion for the religious
man-shrinks to a point; while its external expression in doctrine
and observance is described as part of the order that depends on
the will of the sovereign. Hobbes can cite Scripture for his
purpose; he anticipates some of the results of modern Biblical
criticism; and he has theories about God, the Trinity, the atone-
ment and the last judgment all of them in harmony with his
general principles. His doctrine of God is, in modern phrase,
agnostic. The attributes we ascribe to Him only signify our desire to
honour Him: 'we understand nothing of what he is, but only that
he is. ' In this, Hobbes follows the doctrine of negative attributes,
worked out by some medieval theologians. But his doctrine of
the Trinity is, surely, original. It is
in substance this: that God who is always one and the same was the person
represented by Moses, the person represented by his Son incarnate, and the
person represented by the apostles.
Again, the kingdom of God is a real kingdom, instituted by covenant
a
or contract: which contract was made by Moses, broken by the
election of Saul to the kingship, restored by Christ and proclaimed
by the apostles. But the kingdom of Christ “is not of this world';
6


## p. 297 (#313) ############################################

Leviathan
297
6
it is of the world to come after the general resurrection; "therefore
neither can his ministers (unless they be kings) require obedience
in his name. '
There are two things specially opposed to this theory. On
the one hand, there is the enthusiasm which results from the claim
either to personal illumination by the spirit of God or to private
interpretation of Scripture. On the other hand, there is the claim
to dominion on the part of the organised spiritual power. Both
claims were rampant in Hobbes's day, and he seeks to undermine
them both by criticism. There is no argument, he says, by which
a man can be convinced that God has spoken immediately to some
other man, 'who (being a man) may err, and (which is more) may
lie. ' And, as regards Scripture, it is for sovereigns as the sole
legislators to say which books are canonical, and, therefore, to
them, also, must belong the authority for their interpretation. Of
all the abuses that constitute what Hobbes calls the Kingdom of
Darkness, the greatest arise from the erroneous tenet 'that the
present church now militant on earth is the kingdom of God. '
Through this error, not only the Roman, but, also, the presbyterian,
clergy have been the authors of darkness in religion, and encroached
upon the civil power. The Roman church alone has been thorough
in its work. The pope, in claiming dominion over all Christendom,
has forsaken the true kingdom of God, and he has built up his
power out of the ruins of heathen Rome. For the papacy is no
other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire, sitting crowned
upon the grave thereof. '
Taken as a whole, Hobbes's Leviathan has two characteristics
which stamp it with the mark of genius. In the first place, it is a
work of great imaginative power, which shows how the whole
fabric of human life and society is built up out of simple elements.
And, in the second place, it is distinguished by a remarkable logical
consecutiveness, so that there are very few places in which any lack
of coherence can be detected in the thought. It is true that the social
order, as Hobbes presents it, produces an impression of artificiality;
but this is hardly an objection, for it was his deliberate aim to show
the artifice by which it had been constructed and the danger which
lay in any interference with the mechanism. It is true, also, that
the state of nature and the social contract are fictions passed off as
facts; but, even to this objection, an answer might be made from
within the bounds of his theory. It is in his premises, not in his
reasoning, that the error lies. If human nature were as selfish and
anarchical as he represents it, then morality and the political order


## p. 298 (#314) ############################################

298 Hobbes and Contemporary Philosophy
could arise and flourish only by its restraint, and the alternative
would be, as he describes it, between complete insecurity and
absolute power. But, if his view of man be mistaken, then the
whole fabric of his thought crumbles. When we recognise that
the individual is neither real nor intelligible apart from his social
origin and traditions, and that the social factor influences his
thought and motives, the opposition between self and others
becomes less fundamental, the abrupt alternatives of Hobbism
lose their validity and it is possible to regard morality and the
state as expressing the ideal and sphere of human activity, and
not as simply the chains by which man's unruly passions are kept in
check,
The most powerful criticism of Hobbes's political theory which
appeared in his lifetime was contained in the Oceana of James
Harrington, published in 1656; and the criticism gained in effec-
tiveness from the author's own constructive doctrine. This he set
forth under the thin disguise of a picture of an imaginary common-
wealth. The device was familiar enough at the time. More and
Bacon in England, and Campanella in Italy, had already followed
the ancient model by describing an ideal state, which both More
and Bacon placed in some unknown island of the west. The Utopia
of Sir Thomas More was published in 1516 and Englished by Ralph
Robynson in 1551. The work is a political romance. The spirit of
the renascence was still fresh when the author wrote, and it made
him imagine a new world to which the old order might conform,
and, by conforming, escape the evils of its present condition. There
is not any attempt at a philosophical analysis of the nature of the
state, but only an account of a government and people devoted to the
cause of social welfare. Supreme power is in the hands of a prince,
but he and all other magistrates are elected by the people; and
it is in its account of the life of the people that the interest of the
work lies. They detest war 'as a thing very beastly' and 'count
nothing so much against glory as glory gotten in war. ' Their life
is one of peace and freedom, of justice and equality. There is not
any oppression, industrial or religious; but work and enjoyment
are shared alike by all:
6
In other places, they speak still of the commonwealth, but every man pro
cureth his own private gain. Here where nothing is private, the common
affairs be earnestly looked upon. . . . Nothing is distributed after a niggish
sort, neither there is any poor man or beggar. And though no man have any
thing, yet every man is rich.


## p. 299 (#315) ############################################

New Atlantis and Oceana
299
Bacon's fable New Atlantis (1627) is only a fragment, and has
little of the charm that distinguishes More's romance. Its interest
lies in the description of Solomon's house, which may be taken as
Bacon's ideal of the public endowment of science. We are told
that his lordship thought also in this present fable to have com-
posed a frame of laws, or of the best state or mould of a common-
wealth’; but, unfortunately, he preferred to work at his natural
history, so that we learn nothing about the government of his ideal
community, and little about the social characteristics of the people,
though he descants on the dignity of their manners and on the
magnificence of their costumes.
Harrington's Oceana is a work of a different kind. It has none
of the imaginative quality of Utopia or even of New Atlantis.
Much of it reads like a state paper or the schedules of a budget.
The reference to present affairs is too thinly disguised for any
artistic purpose. 'Oceana' is, of course, England, and the lord
Archon pervades the book as his prototype, Oliver, pervaded the
English government. In all the councils of Oceana, he has always
the last word, and his speeches are long, convincing and wearisome;
he will even digress into sketching the history of the world. The
author was probably ill-advised when he threw his work into the
romantic form. He has a real insight into politics, and can see
some things which were concealed from Hobbes's vision. He never
loses sight of the important fact that government is only one factor
in social life. The form of government will follow the distribution
of property: 'where there is inequality of estates there must be
inequality of power; and where there is inequality of power there
can be no commonwealth. ' The commonwealth should exhibit
equality both in its foundation and in the superstructure. The
former is to be secured by an agrarian law limiting the amount of
property which can be held by one man, so that'no one man or number
of men, within the compass of the few or aristocracy, can come to over-
power the whole people by their possessions in land’; and Harrington
explained the recent change in the government of the country by
the gradual shifting of the balance of property from king and lords
to the commons. Equality in the superstructure will be attained
by means of a rotation or succession to the magistracy secured by
the suffrage of the people given by the ballot. ' In this way will
'
be constituted the three orders: 'the senate debating and proposing,
the people resolving, and the magistracy executing. ' The need for
distinguishing the orders is emphasised in Harrington's Political
Aphorisms, where he says that ‘a popular assembly without a senate


## p. 300 (#316) ############################################

300 Hobbes ana Contemporary Philosophy
6
cannot be wise,' and that a 'senate without a popular assembly will
not be honest. ' A commonwealth thus rightly instituted, so he thinks,
can never swerve from its principles, and has in it no 'principle of
mortality. Yet the constitution which he proposed comes short of
consistent democracy, and falls in with the spirit of the time. The
function of the one great man is recognised: 'a parliament of
physicians would never have found out the circulation of the
blood, nor would a parliament of poets have written Virgil's
Aeneis. ' Thus, the great man is right to aim at the sovereignty
when the times are out of joint, so that he may set them right and
establish the reign of law; and the book ends with his proclamation
as lord Archon for life. The nobility or gentry have, also, their
place:
there is something first in the making of a commonwealth, then in the govern-
ing of it, and last of all in the leading of its armies, which . . . seems to be
peculiar only to the genius of a gentleman.
Like Milton, Harrington argues for liberty of conscience in
matters of religion—though he would disallow 'popish, Jewish, or
idolatrous' worship. Unlike Milton, however, he does not exclude
the state from the sphere of religion:
a commonwealth is nothing else but the national conscience. And if the con-
viction of a man's private conscience produces his private religion, the
conviction of the national conscience must produce a national religion.
Sir Robert Filmer was also among the critics of Hobbes's
politics, though he owes his fame to the circumstance that he
was himself criticised by Locke. He maintained the doctrine of
absolute power as strongly as Hobbes did, and, like him, thought
that limited monarchy meant anarchy; and he had written on these
topics in king Charles's time. But he would not admit that this
power could rest on contract, and, in his Originall of Government
(1652), attacked Hobbes as well as Milton and Grotius. His own
views are set forth in his Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of
Kings, first published in 1680, twenty-seven years after his death.
Filmer was by no means devoid of critical insight. He saw that
the doctrine that all men are by nature free and equal is not true
historically and, therefore, is no good ground for making popular
consent the origin of government.
Late writers (he says] have taken up too much upon trust from the subtle
schoolmen, who to be sure to thrust down the king below the pope, thought it
the safest course to advance the people above the king.
He thinks that a great family, as to the rights of sovereignty, is a


## p. 301 (#317) ############################################

Critics of Hobbes's Politics
301
little monarchy,' and Hobbes had said the same; but Filmer traces
all kingship to the subjection of children to their parents, which is
both natural and a divine ordinance. There has never been a more
absolute dominion than that which Adam had over the whole world.
And kings are Adam's heirs. In developing this thesis, the author
diverges into a reading of history more fantastic than anything
suggested by Bellarmine or Hobbes, and delivers himself up an
easy prey to Locke's criticism.
Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, is also to be counted among
the critics of Hobbes's political theory. His Brief Survey of
the dangerous and pernicious Errors to Church and State in
Mr Hobbes's book (1674) is a protest against the paradoxes of
Leviathan, but is lacking in any element of constructive criticism.
John Bramhall, bishop of Derry, and, afterwards, archbishop of
Armagh, was one of the most vigorous and persistent of Hobbes's
critics. His first work was in defence of the royal power (1643).
Afterwards he engaged in a discussion of the question of free-will
with Hobbes when they were both in France. When the con-
troversy was renewed and became public, he wrote A Defence of
the True Liberty of Human Actions from Antecedent and Ex-
trinsicall Necessity (1655). Hobbes replied, and Bramhall followed,
in 1658, with Castigations of Mr Hobbes, to which there was
an appendix called “The Catching of Leviathan the Great Whale. '
In this appendix, more famous than the rest of the treatise, he
attacked the whole religious and political theory of Hobbes, and
gave rise to the complaint of the latter that the bishop
hath put together diverse sentences picked out of my Leviathan, which stand
there plainly and firmly proved, and sets them down without their proofs, and
without the order of their dependance one upon another; and calls them
atheism, blasphemy, impiety, subversion of religion, and by other names of
that kind.
Two younger polemical writers may be mentioned along with
Bramhall. Thomas Tenison, a future archbishop of Canterbury,
was one of the young churchmen militant who must needs try
their arms 'in thundering upon Hobbes's steel-cap. ' In The Creed
of Mr Hobbes examined (1670), he selected a number of Hobbes's
confident assertions and set them together so as to show their
mutual inconsistencies. In two dialogues, published in 1672 and
1673, John Eachard, afterwards master of St Catharine's hall,
Cambridge, adopted a similar method, and showed no little wit
and learning in his criticism.
These writers are the most notable of a number of early critics


## p. 302 (#318) ############################################

302 Hobbes and Contemporary Philosophy
6
of Hobbes who made no independent contributions of their own to
philosophy. And their criticism dealt with results rather than with
principles. A satisfactory criticism of Hobbes has to penetrate to
the principles of the mechanical philosophy which he adopted, and
to the view of human nature which he set forth in conformity with
those principles. Criticism of this more fundamental kind was
attempted by certain of the Cambridge Platonists-, especially by
Cudworth and More; and they were fitted for the task by their
sympathetic study of the spiritual philosophy of Plato in the
ancient world and of Descartes in their own day-two thinkers for
whom Hobbes had no appreciation.
Joseph Glanvill was intimately associated with some members of
the Cambridge school-in particular, with Henry More—but he was
himself educated at Oxford, and he was not a Platonist. He had,
however, many points of sympathy with them. He was attracted
by the new philosophy of Descartes—he calls it the 'best philo-
sophy'—whereas he had nothing but criticism for the Aristotelianism
that still ruled the schools of Oxford. He was in sympathy, also,
with the broad and reasonable tone that distinguished the theology
of the Cambridge Platonists from the prevailing attitude of the
puritan divines. Glanvill's mind was sensitive to all the influences
of the time: the new science, the human culture, the contending
doctrines in philosophy and theology. The result was a distrust of
all dogmatic systems, combined with a certain openness of mind-a
readiness to receive light from any quarter. His first and most
famous book was The Vanity of Dogmatizing (1661), and a revised
edition of the same was published in 1665 with the title Scepsis
scientifica: or Confest Ignorance the way to Science. This was
dedicated to the Royal Society, of which he had become a fellow
in 1664. In philosophy, Glanvill professed himself a seeker. He
discoursed on the defects in our knowledge even of the things
nearest to us, such as the nature of the soul and the body: he
held that reason is swayed by the emotions, so that most of the
contests of the litigious world pretending for truth are but the
bandyings of one man's affections against another's. His chief
censures were for the dogmas of the Aristotelians, and this in-
volved him in controversy with the learned Mr Thomas White,'
a priest of Douay, collaborator with Sir Kenelm Digby, and a
voluminous author, who answered The Vanity of Dogmatizing in
a Latin treatise entitled Sciri, sive sceptices et scepticorum a jure
a
1 A chapter on the Cambridge Platonists will appear in the next volume of this
work.


## p. 303 (#319) ############################################

Joseph Glanvill
303
2
disputationis exclusio. It is in his reply to this writer that
Glanvill defines his scepticism as a 'way of enquiry, which is not
to continue still poring upon the writings and opinions of philo-
sophers, but to seek truth in the great book of nature. ' The Royal
Society, realising Bacon's prophetic scheme of Solomon's house,
had adopted this method, and had done more for the improvement
of useful knowledge than all the philosophers of the notional way
since Aristotle opened his shop in Greece. ' Glanvill himself ven-
tured upon a 'continuation of the New Atlantis' in his essay
Antifanatick Theologie, and Free Philosophy. His openness of
mind and his conviction that authority and sense are our only
evidence on such matters led to his belief in supernatural appear-
ances. He thought that 'the testimony of all ages' established
their reality. And he distrusted the dogmatism of what he called
'modern Sadducism': to him, it was a 'matter of astonishment
that men, otherwise witty and ingenious, are fallen into the conceit
that there's no such thing as a witch or apparition. '
Other writers of the period showed the influence of the new
ideas. From the scholastic point of view, Samuel Parker, bishop
of Oxford, criticised both Hobbes and Descartes, a treatise on
Cartesianism having been published in England in 1675 by Antoine
Legrand, of Douay, a Franciscan friar and member of the English
mission. In his Court of the Gentiles (1669–77), Theophilus
Gale traced all ancient learning and philosophy to the Hebrew
scriptures. John Pordage wrote a number of works, the mysticism
of which was inspired by Jacob Boehme. The treatise De legibus
naturae, published in 1672, by Richard Cumberland, afterwards
bishop of Peterborough, is much more than a criticism of
Hobbes. It is a restatement of the doctrine of the law of nature
as furnishing the ground of the obligation of all the moral virtues.
The work is heavy in style, and its philosophical analysis lacks
thoroughness; but its insistence on the social nature of man, and
its doctrine of the common good as the supreme law of morality,
anticipate the direction taken by much of the ethical thought of
the following century.


## p. 304 (#320) ############################################

CHAPTER XIII
SCHOLARS AND SCHOLARSHIP, 1600—60
THE starting-point of English scholarship and learning in the
seventeenth century is not the humanism of the early renascence.
The main current was diverted from its onward flow by the events
of the reign of queen Mary and the political and ecclesiastical
exigencies of queen Elizabeth's reign. From the moment of the
return of the English exiles from Geneva, Frankfort and Strass-
burg, the conviction set in of the necessity of a discipline in life
and learning founded on the Bible. This conviction permeated
every activity of the nation, putting energetic representatives of
learning and education in the very front of the propaganda, and
reserving meditative scholars as the very bulwarks of defence.
William Chillingworth’s Religion of Protestants maintained that
the Bible alone is the religion of protestants; and, in the thought
of the age, the Bible, also, was the centre towards which all
scholarship could gravitate most profitably and creditably, and by
which it could most certainly gain acceptance and stability. The
usefulness of learning became almost axiomatic, so long as 'human'
was kept subsidiary to divine' learning. The older humanism
'
which dominated Erasmus, Thomas More and Thomas Elyot was
crushed. The day had passed for placing Aristotle, Plato, Seneca,
side by side, in the joyful enthusiasm for new found comrades, with
New Testament writers, or with St Chrysostom and St Jerome,
fearlessly running the risk of unifying sacred and profane,
in the common appeal to antiquity. The fires of Smithfield
in Mary's reign and the penal inflictions of Elizabeth, together
with the St Bartholomew massacres in France, stirred, in the
minds of both the opposing parties, the intuition that the
struggle between Roman Catholics and protestantism was a per-
sonal concern as well as a national issue and, if there was
authority on the one side, there must be authority on the
other. The issue, necessarily, was the church versus the book.


## p. 305 (#321) ############################################

The Puritans
305
If the contest was not to be by fire and sword solely, the only
alternative was that in the arena of scholarship. The extreme
puritan view of a discipline in religion, based only on the Bible,
was soon found to be ineffective against opponents like the
Jesuits, who commanded all the resources of Bible erudition, as
well as of scholarship in ecclesiastical history, for disputational
purposes. The most redoubtable protestant advocates were, of
necessity, increasingly driven to include in their scholarly studies
the early Fathers as well as the Bible, and to agree that the
primitive church had at least a high degree of authority. But
the main point in tracing the course of this scholarship is to
realise that the church, the early Fathers, the Bible, constituted
authorities to which appeal could be made, and that both Catholics
and their opponents had to pursue, with an intensity of applica-
tion unequalled before or since, the history of antiquity in so far
as it concerned these issues. Christianity, whether of the church
or of the Bible, was a historical religion-and to imply either
aspect was to bring the argument into the historical environ-
ments within which these crucial sanctities had their origin,
development and continuity.
The puritans, who staked their all intellectually on Bible-
centred knowledge, might have confined English scholarship to
the narrowest of limits. England, as J. R. Green has said, became
'the people of one book, and that book the Bible. ' But there
were other influences at work, in this period, which tended to
enlarge the scope of intellectual interests. The spirit of national
enterprise and sea exploit that characterised queen Elizabeth's
reign continued to mark the Stewart period, and transferred itself
into intellectual efforts in new directions. The companies of
Merchant Adventurers made a discovery of the east, as Columbus
had discovered America. Eastern languages were learned and
transmitted, and oriental MSS were triumphantly brought home
to eager scholars. Physical adventure in east and west tended to
provoke fearlessness of enquiry into natural science. The old sea
groups of Hawkins, Ralegh, Frobisher gave place to the camaraderie
of intellectual centres like the society of Antiquaries, gatherings
of gentlemen-investigators, such as Falkland's group at Great
Tew? , Hartlib's group in London and the groups at Oxford,
Cambridge, London, which coalesced into the Royal Society? All
these and other groups were fascinated by the expanding spacious-
ness of physical research and the love of truth, and ideals of
1 See ante, chap. vi.
See post, vol. viii,
6
E L. VII.
CH. XIII.
20


## p. 306 (#322) ############################################

306 Scholars and Scholarship, 1600—60
independent enquiry stimulated them to complete the knowledge
of the Orbis Visibilis and Orbis Intellectualis, and to supply
'gaps' such as those indicated by Bacon.
Besides native sources of wider development than could
be gained from the Bible centre alone, the close connection of
English scholars with foreign scholars must be taken into account.
England was drawn close to the continent after the return of
protestant exiles. Of the twenty-one bishops whom queen
Elizabeth appointed, thirteen had passed most of queen Mary's
reign in Germany or Switzerland, and the 650 letters on theo-
logical subjects published by the Parker society show the close
relationship between English protestants and their fellow believers
abroad. English bishops remembered Geneva in the days of her
tribulation, by the practical method of sending remittances for the
relief of distress when the duke of Savoy was harassing that city.
In 1583, by royal brief, a collection for the Genevese was made in
the churches of England, which brought in £5039. Calvin's Insti-
tutes was translated into English in 1559, by Thomas Norton, and
ran through many editions. Almost all the chief Elizabethan
divines were Zwinglian or Calvinist in doctrine, and were in
communication with foreign theologians and scholars. When the
Spanish armies of Alva were devastating the Low Countries,
distressed protestant Fleming refugees came to England in
hundreds! , while the earl of Leicester and Sir Philip Sidney took
some thousands of Englishmen to fight for the Dutch cause. Pre-
viously, Sir Walter Ralegh had fought for the Huguenots in
France. The duke of Buckingham's duplicity and feebleness in
attempting the relief of La Rochelle in Charles I's reign caused
boundless indignation in England. The sympathy of Cromwell and
the English people with the protestants of Piedmont was sufficient, in
1655, to open the national exchequer for grants to schoolmasters,
ministers, physicians, even to students in divinity and physic.
The continuity of these close relations, political and per-
sonal, with foreign protestants, is of capital importance in under-
standing the history of English scholarship. For, while England
largely owed its concentrative group of Bible studies to Geneva,
the greatest classical scholarship of the sixteenth century had
been shown by French Huguenots, and the chief glories of scholar-
ship in the seventeenth century were clustered together in
1 The frequent immigrations into England of Huguenots and other foreign religious
refugees form an important subject in English commercial history. See Cunningham,
W. , Alien Immigrants to England, chaps. Iv and vi.


## p. 307 (#323) ############################################

C
307
French and Dutch Scholars
; ;;
LH
10
? !
Holland ; and France and Holland, in each age, respectively, were
the countries with which our divines and scholars were in closest
touch. Thus, in the sixteenth century, French scholarship had
been transfigured by the genius and research of Budaeus, Turnebus,
Lambinus and the Stephenses, and the succession into the seven-
teenth century included Casaubon and Salmasius. In 1593, Joseph
Scaliger went to Holland to the university of Leyden (founded 1575).
Dutch scholarship was the ripest in Europe from 1600—60 and
included G. J. Vossius, Isaac Vossius (his son), Claude Saumaise
or Salmasius, P. Cluverius? , Daniel Heinsius, N. Heinsius (his son),
Hugo Grotius, J. F. Gronovius. The interest of this list consists
in the fact that all these distinguished scholars were in direct
touch with English scholars. The older Vossius corresponded,
for instance, with Thomas Farnaby; Isaac Vossius actually left
Holland and lived in England, where he held a prebend at
Windsor for sixteen years (1673—88). Salmasius had the famous
controversy with Milton. From his contemporary, Daniel Heinsius,
Ben Jonson borrowed freely in his Timber. Heinsius's son Nicholas
travelled in England. Hugo Grotius wrote his famous Mare
liberum (1609) to assert the international right of the seas, and
John Selden in 1635 published his answer Mare Clausum, written
about 1619. The brother-in-law of G. J. Vossius, Franciscus
Junius, himself a man of no mean learning, left Holland to come
to England as librarian to the earl of Arundel, and remained in
this post for 30 years. He published his De Pictura Veterum,
in Latin, in 1637, and, in English, in 1638. Junius was drawn
into the enthusiasm for British antiquities and produced an
edition of Caedmon, in 1655, and the Moeso-Gothic text of Ulfilas
in 1664–5; and he left in MS an English etymology which
served the turn of Johnson's Dictionary.
The direct influence of these great French and Dutch scholars
was reinforced by the general state of culture prevalent among
foreign protestants. Travelling was a constituent part of the educa-
tion of the well-to-do. The travelling of men with messages of
goodwill, or of advice to the various churches abroad, brought
about an appreciation of standards of knowledge and learning.
Correspondence between learned men and religious leaders filled
the place of modern reviews and newspapers. Reports of new
books and learned investigations penetrated into remote corners
and at a pace unexampled in the previous history of the world.
ar
DI
reperto
KA
1 P. Cluverius was one of the many 'sojourners' with John Prideaux, rector of
Exeter college, Oxford.
chil
be
>
20_2


## p. 308 (#324) ############################################

308 Scholars and Scholarship, 1600—60
Frankfort and Leipzig fairs collected and circulated books broad-
cast. Dutch presses found a large English market. England was
thus within reach of the best of foreign culture, because she
was protestant after the Genevan type ; and much of the most
solid foreign scholarship, in the seventeenth century, was directly
or indirectly under the spell of Calvin. An interesting indica-
tion of the religious sympathies which united English and foreign
protestants is the growth of the custom of sending boys and girls
to French Huguenot academies and pastors, or English youths to
the university of Leyden; on the other hand, an English scholar such
as Thomas Gataker could maintain for some time a private seminary
in his house at Rotherhithe, and ‘many foreigners went and lodged
with him, that they might enjoy the benefit of his advice. '
Casaubon, when in straitened means in Paris, received lord
Herbert of Cherbury as boarder as he had received young Henry
Wotton in his house at Geneva. Before the Pilgrim fathers went to
America, they had sojourned in Dutch cities, established con-
gregations there and appointed ministers in Amsterdam and
Leyden. There was an English congregation at Rotterdam, whose
minister was William Ames, who, for twelve years, had been pro-
fessor in the university of Franeker in Friesland. William Bedell,
who was chaplain to Wotton at Venice for about three years,
penned his sermons in Italian and Latin, wrote an English grammar
so that Italians might learn to read English sermons and trans-
lated father Paul's works into Latin for all protestant Europe to
read. The great mathematician John Wallis wrote an English
grammar (in Latin) for the use of foreigners. The great English
disputant John Featley lived three years in France and did great
honour to his nation and protestantism by disputing successfully
against the most learned papists. ' Matthew Slade, an Oxford
graduate, became rector of the academy at Amsterdam and
distinguished himself by entering the lists against the scholar
Conrad Vorstius. David Primrose, a Scot, became minister
of the Huguenot church at Rouen. The chaplaincies of the
Merchant companies of England, especially the Levant company,
at Aleppo, furnished important opportunities for the cultivation
of oriental languages. The greatest of these chaplains was
Edward Pococke. The name of Thomas Davies, resident at
Aleppo, is memorable for his services in securing oriental MSS
for archbishop Ussher (1624—7).
Many were the distinguished foreigners who found a home
in England. Antonio de Dominis, once Roman Catholic arch-
6


## p. 309 (#325) ############################################

0
Roman Catholic Scholarship 309
ir
RAD
Ear
#រ
, ܨܶܕ݂
21
bishop of Spalatro, was made dean of Windsor in 1617, and
maintained the rights of national churches, but left England in
1622 and recanted. Saravia and Peter du Moulin, like Isaac
Vossius, held English prebends. John Verneuil, of Bordeaux,
was appointed second keeper of the Bodleian library in 1625.
Matthias Pasor lectured on oriental languages at Exeter college,
Oxford, 1625—9, whilst Christian Ravis of Berlin taught the
same subjects in Gresham college, London, in 1642. John Milton,
in 1649, was appointed secretary for foreign tongues, succeeding
G. R. Weckherlin, a native of Stuttgart, fluent in German, French
and English, and a writer of verses in each of those languages.
The great Albericus Gentilis had lectured on law in Oxford. Isaac
Casaubon took up his abode here from 1610 to 1614 and held a
prebend at Canterbury with a pension of £300 a year.
The influence of Roman Catholic scholarship perhaps consti-
tuted the most potent stimulus to the prodigious efforts of pro-
testant erudition in this period. In the latter half of the sixteenth
century, Jesuits had regained France and southern Germany for
Rome, and protestants were in peril of their lives. Jesuits had
taken the lead in polite letters and had trained themselves in
classical style. Yet the whole course of their studies, ‘however
deeply grounded in erudition or embellished by eloquence, had
one perpetual aim—the propagation of the Catholic faith. Jesuit
colleges were the admiration of every scholar. Three years'
work was devoted to philosophy, and four years' drill was given in
theology. Thus were trained the combatants who gained back
France and part of Germany to Rome, and bid fair, at the
beginning of the seventeenth century, to extirpate protestantism
everywhere. Towering above the army of disputants thus
produced, cardinal Bellarmine swept the field in controversial
theology. In these controversies, England was not unrepresented,
but English writers found it increasingly necessary to equip
themselves further in specialistic learning and dialectical skill
in order to meet their opponents. The war was carried on in
England by William Whitaker, the great Calvinistic scholarly
churchman of queen Elizabeth's reign, and, in the same reign,
and in that of James I, by Matthew Sutcliffe, afterwards dean
of Exeter; by John Rainolds, king James I, Lancelot Andrewes
and Francis Mason. On the Catholic side, one of the most dis-
tinguished English disputants was William Rainolds, brother of
John Rainolds.
Inconsiderable in point of learning as some of these theo-
Bet
ut 1
>
Art
ola
42"
23


## p. 310 (#326) ############################################

310 Scholars and Scholarship,
Scholarship, 1600—60
logical disputations may be, the controversies largely determined
the line of direction of scholarly effort. It is significant that, in
1610, James I incorporated a college to be called by his name at
Chelsea. Matthew Sutcliffe gave considerable funds to the pro-
ject, and was appointed provost. Its occupants were to be men
of war,' reserved for polemical studies. Besides the study of
divinity, two historians were to be maintained, 'to record and
publish to posterity all memorable passages in Church and
Commonwealth. ' The college, ultimately, was seized by parliament
during the interregnum. Samuel Hartlib, in 1655, in a letter to
John Worthington, master of Jesus college, Cambridge, laments
its confiscation. 'Bishops and Deans are gone,' he says. It
would be a scandal, if 'we betray or destroy an incomparable
engine already prepared. . . for the defence of the Truth. '
But a still higher stimulus to protestant learning was provided
in 1588—1609 when the greatest of Roman Catholic researchers,
cardinal Baronius, produced his twelve folios of Annales Eccle-
siastici:
"The whole case,' says Mark Pattison,‘of the Romanists and especially the
supremacy of the See of Rome was here set out in the form of authentic
annals. . . . The Annales transferred to the Catholic party the preponderance
in the field of learning which ever since Erasmus had been on the side of the
innovators. ?
It became the object of protestant learning to devote itself to the
effective criticism and refutation of the statements and argu-
ments of Baronius. No mere reliance on scriptural texts could
meet the emergency. Learning could only be fairly and finally
met by learning. Zealously English scholars strained themselves
to the utmost. John Rainolds, president of Corpus Christi
college, Oxford, attempted, from the puritanic side, the task of
refuting Baronius in 1602. All English efforts, however, pale into
insignificance beside the work of Isaac Casaubon, De rebus sacris
et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI ad Baronii annales (1614).
Next to Joseph Scaliger in Leyden, who died in 1609, Isaac
Casaubon was regarded as the most learned scholar in Europe,
and his residence in London from 1610 to 1614 proved the
attractiveness to his scholarly mind of the theological attitude
of men like Lancelot Andrewes. Casaubon’s residence in England
was an incalculable stimulus to the industry and research of the
new 'Anglican' school that was rising over the heads of the
puritan groups.
Whilst Casaubon was admired by the protestant world for his


## p. 311 (#327) ############################################

Casaubon
311
classical and patristic scholarship, there was not a little mis-
giving that he lost his opportunity in his Exercitationes of
refuting the doctrinal theology of Baronius, and it was feared
that he had failed to return the undermining attacks of Jesuits
on protestant bulwarks. But Casaubon was not a gladiator like
Scioppius. He had gone through fiery torments of indecision in
taking the one side rather than the other. In the inner sanctity
of his conscience, the cause of truth was enshrined. The older
ideal of imitation, both in form and in substance, of the great
classical writers of antiquity had now passed. It was essential
for those engaged in theological conflict on an intellectual plane to
know. But knowledge, which goes to the root of matters, must
use both a trained judgment and the results of independent
enquiries into the ideas and thoughts as well as the surroundings
of the ancient world, if it is to represent a solid basis for the
thought of the present. To the keenest scholars of the seven-
teenth century, among whom Casaubon was conspicuously the first,
the foundations of theological truth necessarily had to be sought
in the earlier centuries of the Christian era. Casaubon had
devoted his faculties, heightened and refined by almost in-
credible application, unparalleled even in that age of classical
scholars, to critical work in respect of the writings of Strabo,
Athenaeus, Persius and Polybius. On all these, he brought to
bear a knowledge of classical antiquity which seemed at once
universal in its comprehensiveness and selective in its adequacy
for the point in hand, so much so that his commentary on Strabo
has not been superseded.