there is a valuable class of books on great subjects which have something of the character and functions of good popular lecturing. they are not original, not subtle, not of close logical texture, not exquisite either in thought or style; but by virtue of these negatives they are all the more fit to act on the average intelligence. they have enough of organizing purpose in them to make their facts illustrative, and to leave a distinct result in the mind even when most of the facts are forgotten; and they have enough of vagueness and vacillation in their theory to win them ready acceptance from a mixed audience. the vagueness and vacillation are not devices of timidity; they are the honest result of the writer’s own mental character, which adapts him to be the instructor and the favorite of “the general reader.” for the most part, the general reader of the present day does not exactly know what distance he goes; he only knows that he does not go “too far.” of any remarkable thinker, whose writings have excited controversy, he likes to have it said that “his errors are to be deplored,” leaving it not too certain what those errors are; he is fond of what may be called disembodied opinions, that float in vapory phrases above all systems of thought or action; he likes an undefined christianity which opposes itself to nothing in particular, an undefined education of the people, an undefined amelioration of all things: in fact, he likes sound views—nothing extreme, but something between the excesses of the past and the excesses of the present. this modern type of the general reader may be known in conversation by the cordiality with which he assents to indistinct, blurred statements: say that black is black, he will shake his head and hardly think it; say that black is not so very black, he will reply, “exactly.” p. 258he has no hesitation, if you wish it, even to get up at a public meeting and express his conviction that at times, and within certain limits, the radii of a circle have a tendency to be equal; but, on the other hand, he would urge that the spirit of geometry may be carried a little too far. his only bigotry is a bigotry against any clearly defined opinion; not in the least based on a scientific scepticism, but belonging to a lack of coherent thought—a spongy texture of mind, that gravitates strongly to nothing. the one thing he is staunch for is, the utmost liberty of private haziness.

but precisely these characteristics of the general reader, rendering him incapable of assimilating ideas unless they are administered in a highly diluted form, make it a matter of rejoicing that there are clever, fair-minded men, who will write books for him—men very much above him in knowledge and ability, but not too remote from him in their habits of thinking, and who can thus prepare for him infusions of history and science that will leave some solidifying deposit, and save him from a fatal softening of the intellectual skeleton. among such serviceable writers, mr. lecky’s “history of the rise and influence of the spirit of rationalism in europe” entitles him to a high place. he has prepared himself for its production by an unusual amount of well-directed reading; he has chosen his facts and quotations with much judgment; and he gives proof of those important moral qualifications, impartiality, seriousness, and modesty. this praise is chiefly applicable to the long chapter on the history of magic and witchcraft, which opens the work, and to the two chapters on the antecedents and history of persecution, which occur, the one at the end of the first volume, the other at the beginning of the second. in these chapters mr. lecky has a narrower and better-traced path before him than in other portions of his work; he is more occupied with presenting a particular class of facts in their historical sequence, and in their relation to certain grand tide-marks of opinion, than with disquisition; and his writing is freer than elsewhere from an apparent confusedness of thought and an exuberance of approximative phrases, which can be serviceable in no other way than as diluents needful for the sort of reader we have just described.

the history of magic and witchcraft has been judiciously chosen by mr. lecky as the subject of his first section on the declining sense of the miraculous, because it is strikingly illustrative of a position with the truth of which he is strongly p. 259impressed, though he does not always treat of it with desirable clearness and precision, namely, that certain beliefs become obsolete, not in consequence of direct arguments against them, but because of their incongruity with prevalent habits of thought. here is his statement of the two “classes of influences” by which the mass of men, in what is called civilized society, get their beliefs gradually modified:

“if we ask why it is that the world has rejected what was once so universally and so intensely believed, why a narrative of an old woman who had been seen riding on a broomstick, or who was proved to have transformed herself into a wolf, and to have devoured the flocks of her neighbors, is deemed so entirely incredible, most persons would probably be unable to give a very definite answer to the question. it is not because we have examined the evidence and found it insufficient, for the disbelief always precedes, when it does not prevent, examination. it is rather because the idea of absurdity is so strongly attached to such narratives, that it is difficult even to consider them with gravity. yet at one time no such improbability was felt, and hundreds of persons have been burnt simply on the two grounds i have mentioned.

“when so complete a change takes place in public opinion, it may be ascribed to one or other of two causes. it may be the result of a controversy which has conclusively settled the question, establishing to the satisfaction of all parties a clear preponderance of argument or fact in favor of one opinion, and making that opinion a truism which is accepted by all enlightened men, even though they have not themselves examined the evidence on which it rests. thus, if any one in a company of ordinarily educated persons were to deny the motion of the earth, or the circulation of the blood, his statement would be received with derision, though it is probable that some of his audience would be unable to demonstrate the first truth, and that very few of them could give sufficient reasons for the second. they may not themselves be able to defend their position; but they are aware that, at certain known periods of history, controversies on those subjects took place, and that known writers then brought forward some definite arguments or experiments, which were ultimately accepted by the whole learned world as rigid and conclusive demonstrations. it is possible, also, for as complete a change to be effected by what is called the spirit of the age. the general intellectual tendencies pervading the literature of a century profoundly modify the character of the public mind. they form a new tone and habit of thought. they alter the measure of probability. they create new attractions and new antipathies, and they eventually cause as absolute a rejection of certain old opinions as could be produced by the most cogent and definite arguments.”

mr. lecky proceeds to some questionable views concerning the evidences of witchcraft, which seem to be irreconcilable even with his own remarks later on; but they lead him to the p. 260statement, thoroughly made out by his historical survey, that “movement was mainly silent, unargumentative, and insensible; that men came gradually to disbelieve in witchcraft, because they came gradually to look upon it as absurd; and that this new tone of thought appeared, first of all, in those who were least subject to theological influences, and soon spread through the educated laity, and, last of all, took possession of the clergy.”

we have rather painful proof that this “second class of influences,” with a vast number go hardly deeper than fashion, and that witchcraft to many of us is absurd only on the same ground that our grandfathers’ gigs are absurd. it is felt preposterous to think of spiritual agencies in connection with ragged beldames soaring on broomsticks, in an age when it is known that mediums of communication with the invisible world are usually unctuous personages dressed in excellent broadcloth, who soar above the curtain-poles without any broomstick, and who are not given to unprofitable intrigues. the enlightened imagination rejects the figure of a witch with her profile in dark relief against the moon and her broomstick cutting a constellation. no undiscovered natural laws, no names of “respectable” witnesses, are invoked to make us feel our presumption in questioning the diabolic intimacies of that obsolete old woman, for it is known now that the undiscovered laws, and the witnesses qualified by the payment of income tax, are all in favor of a different conception—the image of a heavy gentleman in boots and black coat-tails foreshortened against the cornice. yet no less a person than sir thomas browne once wrote that those who denied there were witches, inasmuch as they thereby denied spirits also, were “obliquely and upon consequence a sort, not of infidels, but of atheists.” at present, doubtless, in certain circles, unbelievers in heavy gentlemen who float in the air by means of undiscovered laws are also taxed with atheism; illiberal as it is not to admit that mere weakness of understanding may prevent one from seeing how that phenomenon is necessarily involved in the divine origin of things. with still more remarkable parallelism, sir thomas browne goes on: “those that, to refute their incredulity, desire to see apparitions, shall questionless never behold any, nor have the power to be so much as witches. the devil hath made them already in a heresy as capital as witchcraft, and to appear to them were but to convert them.” it would be difficult to see what has been changed here, but the p. 261mere drapery of circumstance, if it were not for this prominent difference between our own days and the days of witchcraft, that instead of torturing, drowning, or burning the innocent, we give hospitality and large pay to—the highly distinguished medium. at least we are safely rid of certain horrors; but if the multitude—that “farraginous concurrence of all conditions, tempers, sexes, and ages”—do not roll back even to a superstition that carries cruelty in its train, it is not because they possess a cultivated reason, but because they are pressed upon and held up by what we may call an external reason—the sum of conditions resulting from the laws of material growth, from changes produced by great historical collisions shattering the structures of ages and making new highways for events and ideas, and from the activities of higher minds no longer existing merely as opinions and teaching, but as institutions and organizations with which the interests, the affections, and the habits of the multitude are inextricably interwoven. no undiscovered laws accounting for small phenomena going forward under drawing-room tables are likely to affect the tremendous facts of the increase of population, the rejection of convicts by our colonies, the exhaustion of the soil by cotton plantations, which urge even upon the foolish certain questions, certain claims, certain views concerning the scheme of the world, that can never again be silenced. if right reason is a right representation of the co-existence and sequences of things, here are co-existences and sequences that do not wait to be discovered, but press themselves upon us like bars of iron. no séances at a guinea a head for the sake of being pinched by “mary jane” can annihilate railways, steamships, and electric telegraphs, which are demonstrating the interdependence of all human interests, and making self-interest a duct for sympathy. these things are part of the external reason to which internal silliness has inevitably to accommodate itself.

three points in the history of magic and witchcraft are well brought out by mr. lecky. first, that the cruelties connected with it did not begin until men’s minds had ceased to repose implicitly in a sacramental system which made them feel well armed against evil spirits; that is, until the eleventh century, when there came a sort of morning dream of doubt and heresy, bringing on the one side the terror of timid consciences, and on the other the terrorism of authority or zeal bent on checking the rising struggle. in that time of comparative mental repose, says mr. lecky,

p. 262“all those conceptions of diabolical presence; all that predisposition toward the miraculous, which acted so fearfully upon the imaginations of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, existed; but the implicit faith, the boundless and triumphant credulity with which the virtue of ecclesiastical rites was accepted, rendered them comparatively innocuous. if men had been a little less superstitious, the effects of their superstition would have been much more terrible. it was firmly believed that any one who deviated from the strict line of orthodoxy must soon succumb beneath the power of satan; but as there was no spirit of rebellion or doubt, this persuasion did not produce any extraordinary terrorism.”

the church was disposed to confound heretical opinion with sorcery; false doctrine was especially the devil’s work, and it was a ready conclusion that a denier or innovator had held consultation with the father of lies. it is a saying of a zealous catholic in the sixteenth century, quoted by maury in his excellent work, “de la magie”—“crescit cum magia h?resis, cum h?resi magia.” even those who doubted were terrified at their doubts, for trust is more easily undermined than terror. fear is earlier born than hope, lays a stronger grasp on man’s system than any other passion, and remains master of a larger group of involuntary actions. a chief aspect of man’s moral development is the slow subduing of fear by the gradual growth of intelligence, and its suppression as a motive by the presence of impulses less animally selfish; so that in relation to invisible power, fear at last ceases to exist, save in that interfusion with higher faculties which we call awe.

secondly, mr. lecky shows clearly that dogmatic protestantism, holding the vivid belief in satanic agency to be an essential of piety, would have felt it shame to be a whit behind catholicism in severity against the devil’s servants. luther’s sentiment was that he would not suffer a witch to live (he was not much more merciful to jews); and, in spite of his fondness for children, believing a certain child to have been begotten by the devil, he recommended the parents to throw it into the river. the torch must be turned on the worst errors of heroic minds—not in irreverent ingratitude, but for the sake of measuring our vast and various debt to all the influences which have concurred, in the intervening ages, to make us recognize as detestable errors the honest convictions of men who, in mere individual capacity and moral force, were very much above us. again, the scotch puritans, during the comparatively short period of their ascendency, surpassed all christians before them in the elaborate ingenuity of the p. 263tortures they applied for the discovery of witchcraft and sorcery, and did their utmost to prove that if scotch calvinism was the true religion, the chief “note” of the true religion was cruelty. it is hardly an endurable task to read the story of their doings; thoroughly to imagine them as a past reality is already a sort of torture. one detail is enough, and it is a comparatively mild one. it was the regular profession of men called “prickers” to thrust long pins into the body of a suspected witch in order to detect the insensible spot which was the infallible sign of her guilt. on a superficial view one would be in danger of saying that the main difference between the teachers who sanctioned these things and the much-despised ancestors who offered human victims inside a huge wicker idol, was that they arrived at a more elaborate barbarity by a longer series of dependent propositions. we do not share mr. buckle’s opinion that a scotch minister’s groans were a part of his deliberate plan for keeping the people in a state of terrified subjection; the ministers themselves held the belief they taught, and might well groan over it. what a blessing has a little false logic been to the world! seeing that men are so slow to question their premises, they must have made each other much more miserable, if pity had not sometimes drawn tender conclusions not warranted by major and minor; if there had not been people with an amiable imbecility of reasoning which enabled them at once to cling to hideous beliefs, and to be conscientiously inconsistent with them in their conduct. there is nothing like acute deductive reasoning for keeping a man in the dark: it might be called the technique of the intellect, and the concentration of the mind upon it corresponds to that predominance of technical skill in art which ends in degradation of the artist’s function, unless new inspiration and invention come to guide it.

and of this there is some good illustration furnished by that third node in the history of witchcraft, the beginning of its end, which is treated in an interesting manner by mr. lecky. it is worth noticing, that the most important defences of the belief in witchcraft, against the growing scepticism in the latter part of the sixteenth century and in the seventeenth, were the productions of men who in some departments were among the foremost thinkers of their time. one of them was jean bodin, the famous writer on government and jurisprudence, whose “republic,” hallam thinks, had an important influence in england, and furnished “a store of arguments and examples p. 264that were not lost on the thoughtful minds of our countrymen.” in some of his views he was original and bold; for example, he anticipated montesquieu in attempting to appreciate the relations of government and climate. hallam inclines to the opinion that he was a jew, and attached divine authority only to the old testament. but this was enough to furnish him with his chief data for the existence of witches and for their capital punishment; and in the account of his “republic,” given by hallam, there is enough evidence that the sagacity which often enabled him to make fine use of his learning was also often entangled in it, to temper our surprise at finding a writer on political science of whom it could be said that, along with montesquieu, he was “the most philosophical of those who had read so deeply, the most learned of those who had thought so much,” in the van of the forlorn hope to maintain the reality of witchcraft. it should be said that he was equally confident of the unreality of the copernican hypothesis, on the ground that it was contrary to the tenets of the theologians and philosophers and to common-sense, and therefore subversive of the foundations of every science. of his work on witchcraft, mr. lecky says:

“the ‘démonomanie des sorciers’ is chiefly an appeal to authority, which the author deemed on this subject so unanimous and so conclusive, that it was scarcely possible for any sane man to resist it. he appealed to the popular belief in all countries, in all ages, and in all religions. he cited the opinions of an immense multitude of the greatest writers of pagan antiquity, and of the most illustrious of the fathers. he showed how the laws of all nations recognized the existence of witchcraft; and he collected hundreds of cases which had been investigated before the tribunals of his own or of other countries. he relates with the most minute and circumstantial detail, and with the most unfaltering confidence, all the proceedings at the witches’ sabbath, the methods which the witches employed in transporting themselves through the air, their transformations, their carnal intercourse with the devil, their various means of injuring their enemies, the signs that lead to their detection, their confessions when condemned, and their demeanor at the stake.”

something must be allowed for a lawyer’s affection toward a belief which had furnished so many “cases.” bodin’s work had been immediately prompted by the treatise “de prestigiis d?nionum,” written by john wier, a german physician, a treatise which is worth notice as an example of a transitional form of opinion for which many analogies may be found in the history both of religion and science. wier p. 265believed in demons, and in possession by demons, but his practice as a physician had convinced him that the so-called witches were patients and victims, that the devil took advantage of their diseased condition to delude them, and that there was no consent of an evil will on the part of the women. he argued that the word in leviticus translated “witch” meant “poisoner,” and besought the princes of europe to hinder the further spilling of innocent blood. these heresies of wier threw bodin into such a state of amazed indignation that if he had been an ancient jew instead of a modern economical one, he would have rent his garments. “no one had ever heard of pardon being accorded to sorcerers;” and probably the reason why charles ix. died young was because he had pardoned the sorcerer, trios echelles! we must remember that this was in 1581, when the great scientific movement of the renaissance had hardly begun—when galileo was a youth of seventeen, and kepler a boy of ten.

but directly afterward, on the other side, came montaigne, whose sceptical acuteness could arrive at negatives without any apparatus of method. a certain keen narrowness of nature will secure a man from many absurd beliefs which the larger soul, vibrating to more manifold influences, would have a long struggle to part with. and so we find the charming, chatty montaigne—in one of the brightest of his essays, “des boiteux,” where he declares that, from his own observation of witches and sorcerers, he should have recommended them to be treated with curative hellebore—stating in his own way a pregnant doctrine, since taught more gravely. it seems to him much less of a prodigy that men should lie, or that their imaginations should deceive them, than that a human body should be carried through the air on a broomstick, or up a chimney by some unknown spirit. he thinks it a sad business to persuade oneself that the test of truth lies in the multitude of believers—“en une prosse où les fols surpassent de tant les sages en nombre.” ordinarily, he has observed, when men have something stated to them as a fact, they are more ready to explain it than to inquire whether it is real: “ils passent pardessus les propositions, mais ils examinent les conséquences; ils laissent les choses, et courent aux causes.” there is a sort of strong and generous ignorance which is as honorable and courageous as science—“ignorance pour laquelle concevoir il n’y a pas moins de science qu’à concevoir la science.” and à propos of the immense traditional evidence which weighed p. 266with such men as bodin, he says—“as for the proofs and arguments founded on experience and facts, i do not pretend to unravel these. what end of a thread is there to lay hold of? i often cut them as alexander did his knot. après tout, c’est mettre ses conjectures a bien haut prix, que d’en faire cuire un homme tout dif.”

writing like this, when it finds eager readers, is a sign that the weather is changing; yet much later, namely, after 1665, when the royal society had been founded, our own glanvil, the author of the “scepsis scientifica,” a work that was a remarkable advance toward the true definition of the limits of inquiry, and that won him his election as fellow of the society, published an energetic vindication of the belief in witchcraft, of which mr. lecky gives the following sketch:

“the ‘sadducismus triumphatus,’ which is probably the ablest book ever published in defence of the superstition, opens with a striking picture of the rapid progress of the scepticism in england. everywhere, a disbelief in witchcraft was becoming fashionable in the upper classes; but it was a disbelief that arose entirely from a strong sense of its antecedent improbability. all who were opposed to the orthodox faith united in discrediting witchcraft. they laughed at it, as palpably absurd, as involving the most grotesque and ludicrous conceptions, as so essentially incredible that it would be a waste of time to examine it. this spirit had arisen since the restoration, although the laws were still in force, and although little or no direct reasoning had been brought to bear upon the subject. in order to combat it, glanvil proceeded to examine the general question of the credibility of the miraculous. he saw that the reason why witchcraft was ridiculed was, because it was a phase of the miraculous and the work of the devil; that the scepticism was chiefly due to those who disbelieved in miracles and the devil; and that the instances of witchcraft or possession in the bible were invariably placed on a level with those that were tried in the law courts of england. that the evidence of the belief was overwhelming, he firmly believed; and this, indeed, was scarcely disputed; but, until the sense of à priori improbability was removed, no possible accumulation of facts would cause men to believe it. to that task he accordingly addressed himself. anticipating the idea and almost the words of modern controversialists, he urged that there was such a thing as a credulity of unbelief; and that those who believed so strange a concurrence of delusions, as was necessary on the supposition of the unreality of witchcraft, were far more credulous than those who accepted the belief. he made his very scepticism his principal weapon; and, analyzing with much acuteness the à priori objections, he showed that they rested upon an unwarrantable confidence in our knowledge of the laws of the spirit world; that they implied the existence of some strict analogy between the faculties of men and of spirits; and that, as such analogy most probably did not exist, no reasoning based on the p. 267supposition could dispense men from examining the evidence. he concluded with a large collection of cases, the evidence of which was, as he thought, incontestable.”

we have quoted this sketch because glanvil’s argument against the à priori objection of absurdity is fatiguingly urged in relation to other alleged marvels which, to busy people seriously occupied with the difficulties of affairs, of science, or of art, seem as little worthy of examination as a?ronautic broomsticks. and also because we here see glanvil, in combating an incredulity that does not happen to be his own, wielding that very argument of traditional evidence which he had made the subject of vigorous attack in his “scepsis scientifica.” but perhaps large minds have been peculiarly liable to this fluctuation concerning the sphere of tradition, because, while they have attacked its misapplications, they have been the more solicited by the vague sense that tradition is really the basis of our best life. our sentiments may be called organized traditions; and a large part of our actions gather all their justification, all their attraction and aroma, from the memory of the life lived, of the actions done, before we were born. in the absence of any profound research into psychological functions or into the mysteries of inheritance, in the absence of any comprehensive view of man’s historical development and the dependence of one age on another, a mind at all rich in sensibilities must always have had an indefinite uneasiness in an undistinguishing attack on the coercive influence of tradition. and this may be the apology for the apparent inconsistency of glanvil’s acute criticism on the one side, and his indignation at the “looser gentry,” who laughed at the evidences for witchcraft on the other. we have already taken up too much space with this subject of witchcraft, else we should be tempted to dwell on sir thomas browne, who far surpassed glanvil in magnificent incongruity of opinion, and whose works are the most remarkable combination existing, of witty sarcasm against ancient nonsense and modern obsequiousness, with indications of a capacious credulity. after all, we may be sharing what seems to us the hardness of these men, who sat in their studies and argued at their ease about a belief that would be reckoned to have caused more misery and bloodshed than any other superstition, if there had been no such thing as persecution on the ground of religious opinion.

on this subject of persecution, mr. lecky writes his best: with clearness of conception, with calm justice, bent on appreciating p. 268the necessary tendency of ideas, and with an appropriateness of illustration that could be supplied only by extensive and intelligent reading. persecution, he shows, is not in any sense peculiar to the catholic church; it is a direct sequence of the doctrines that salvation is to be had only within the church, and that erroneous belief is damnatory—doctrines held as fully by protestant sects as by the catholics; and in proportion to its power, protestantism has been as persecuting as catholicism. he maintains, in opposition to the favorite modern notion of persecution defeating its own object, that the church, holding the dogma of exclusive salvation, was perfectly consequent, and really achieved its end of spreading one belief and quenching another, by calling in the aid of the civil arm. who will say that governments, by their power over institutions and patronage, as well as over punishment, have not power also over the interests and inclinations of men, and over most of those external conditions into which subjects are born, and which make them adopt the prevalent belief as a second nature? hence, to a sincere believer in the doctrine of exclusive salvation, governments had it in their power to save men from perdition; and wherever the clergy were at the elbow of the civil arm, no matter whether they were catholic or protestant, persecution was the result. “compel them to come in” was a rule that seemed sanctioned by mercy, and the horrible sufferings it led men to inflict seemed small to minds accustomed to contemplate, as a perpetual source of motive, the eternal unmitigated miseries of a hell that was the inevitable destination of a majority among mankind.

it is a significant fact, noted by mr. lecky, that the only two leaders of the reformation who advocated tolerance were zuinglius and socinus, both of them disbelievers in exclusive salvation. and in corroboration of other evidence that the chief triumphs of the reformation were due to coercion, he commends to the special attention of his readers the following quotation from a work attributed without question to the famous protestant theologian, jurieu, who had himself been hindered, as a protestant, from exercising his professional functions in france, and was settled as pastor at rotterdam. it should be remembered that jurieu’s labors fell in the latter part of the seventeenth century and in the beginning of the eighteenth, and that he was the contemporary of bayle, with whom he was in bitter controversial hostility. he wrote, then, at p. 269a time when there was warm debate on the question of toleration; and it was his great object to vindicate himself and his french fellow-protestants from all laxity on this point.

“peut on nier que le panganisme est tombé dans le monde par l’autorité des empereurs romains? on peut assurer sans temerité que le paganisme seroit encore debout, et que les trois quarts de l’europe seroient encore payens si constantin et ses successeurs n’avaient employé leur autorité pour l’abolir. mais, je vous prie, de quelles voies dieu s’est il servi dans ces derniers siècles pour rétablir la veritable religion dans l’occident? les rois de suède, ceux de danemarck, ceux d’angleterre, les magistrats souverains de suisse, des pa?s bas, des villes livres d’allemagne, les princes électeurs, et autres princes souverains de l’empire, n’ont ils pas emploié leur autorité pour abbattre le papisme?”

indeed, wherever the tremendous alternative of everlasting torments is believed in—believed in so that it becomes a motive determining the life—not only persecution, but every other form of severity and gloom are the legitimate consequences. there is much ready declamation in these days against the spirit of asceticism and against zeal for doctrinal conversion; but surely the macerated form of a saint francis, the fierce denunciations of a saint dominic, the groans and prayerful wrestlings of the puritan who seasoned his bread with tears and made all pleasurable sensation sin, are more in keeping with the contemplation of unending anguish as the destiny of a vast multitude whose nature we share, than the rubicund cheerfulness of some modern divines, who profess to unite a smiling liberalism with a well-bred and tacit but unshaken confidence in the reality of the bottomless pit. but, in fact, as mr. lecky maintains, that awful image, with its group of associated dogmas concerning the inherited curse, and the damnation of unbaptized infants, of heathens, and of heretics, has passed away from what he is fond of calling “the realizations” of christendom. these things are no longer the objects of practical belief. they may be mourned for in encyclical letters; bishops may regret them; doctors of divinity may sign testimonials to the excellent character of these decayed beliefs; but for the mass of christians they are no more influential than unrepealed but forgotten statutes. and with these dogmas has melted away the strong basis for the defence of persecution. no man now writes eager vindications of himself and his colleagues from the suspicion of adhering to the principle of toleration. and this momentous change, it is mr. lecky’s object to show, is due to that concurrence of p. 270conditions which he has chosen to call “the advance of the spirit of rationalism.”

in other parts of his work, where he attempts to trace the action of the same conditions on the acceptance of miracles and on other chief phases of our historical development, mr. lecky has laid himself open to considerable criticism. the chapters on the “miracles of the church,” the ?sthetic, scientific, and moral development of rationalism, the secularization of politics, and the industrial history of rationalism, embrace a wide range of diligently gathered facts; but they are nowhere illuminated by a sufficiently clear conception and statement of the agencies at work, or the mode of their action, in the gradual modification of opinion and of life. the writer frequently impresses us as being in a state of hesitation concerning his own standing-point, which may form a desirable stage in private meditation but not in published exposition. certain epochs in theoretic conception, certain considerations, which should be fundamental to his survey, are introduced quite incidentally in a sentence or two, or in a note which seems to be an afterthought. great writers and their ideas are touched upon too slightly and with too little discrimination, and important theories are sometimes characterized with a rashness which conscientious revision will correct. there is a fatiguing use of vague or shifting phrases, such as “modern civilization,” “spirit of the age,” “tone of thought,” “intellectual type of the age,” “bias of the imagination,” “habits of religious thought,” unbalanced by any precise definition; and the spirit of rationalism is sometimes treated of as if it lay outside the specific mental activities of which it is a generalized expression. mr. curdle’s famous definition of the dramatic unities as “a sort of a general oneness,” is not totally false; but such luminousness as it has could only be perceived by those who already knew what the unities were. mr. lecky has the advantage of being strongly impressed with the great part played by the emotions in the formation of opinion, and with the high complexity of the causes at work in social evolution; but he frequently writes as if he had never yet distinguished between the complexity of the conditions that produce prevalent states of mind and the inability of particular minds to give distinct reasons for the preferences or persuasions produced by those states. in brief, he does not discriminate, or does not help his reader to discriminate, between objective complexity and subjective confusion. but the most muddle-headed p. 271gentleman who represents the spirit of the age by observing, as he settles his collar, that the development theory is quite “the thing” is a result of definite processes, if we could only trace them. “mental attitudes,” and “predispositions,” however vague in consciousness, have not vague causes, any more than the “blind motions of the spring” in plants and animals.

the word “rationalism” has the misfortune, shared by most words in this gray world, of being somewhat equivocal. this evil may be nearly overcome by careful preliminary definition; but mr. lecky does not supply this, and the original specific application of the word to a particular phase of biblical interpretation seems to have clung about his use of it with a misleading effect. through some parts of his book he appears to regard the grand characteristic of modern thought and civilization, compared with ancient, as a radiation in the first instance from a change in religious conceptions. the supremely important fact, that the gradual reduction of all phenomena within the sphere of established law, which carries as a consequence the rejection of the miraculous, has its determining current in the development of physical science, seems to have engaged comparatively little of his attention; at least, he gives it no prominence. the great conception of universal regular sequence, without partiality and without caprice—the conception which is the most potent force at work in the modification of our faith, and of the practical form given to our sentiments—could only grow out of that patient watching of external fact, and that silencing of preconceived notions, which are urged upon the mind by the problems of physical science.

there is not room here to explain and justify the impressions of dissatisfaction which have been briefly indicated, but a serious writer like mr. lecky will not find such suggestions altogether useless. the objections, even the misunderstandings, of a reader who is not careless or ill-disposed, may serve to stimulate an author’s vigilance over his thoughts as well as his style. it would be gratifying to see some future proof that mr. lecky has acquired juster views than are implied in the assertion that philosophers of the sensational school “can never rise to the conception of the disinterested;” and that he has freed himself from all temptation to that mingled laxity of statement and ill-pitched elevation of tone which are painfully present in the closing pages of his second volume.