{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_46130/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_46130","id":"gutenberg_46130","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46130","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: British Literature","Category: History - British","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Locke, John, 1632-1704"],"text":"Note: Images of the original pages are available through\n Internet Archive. See\n https://archive.org/details/lockelocke00fowlrich\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\n Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\n Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).\n\n Transcriber-provided Greek transliterations are enclosed\n by square brackets (example: [Greek: elaiophoria]).\n\n\n\n\n\nEnglish Men of Letters\n\nEdited by John Morley\n\nLOCKE\n\nby\n\nTHOMAS FOWLER\n\nProfessor of Logic in the University of Oxford\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\nNew York\nHarper & Brothers, Publishers\nFranklin Square\n\n\n * * * * * *\n\nENGLISH MEN OF LETTERS.\n\nEDITED BY JOHN MORLEY.\n\n\n JOHNSON Leslie Stephen.\n GIBBON J. C. Morison.\n SCOTT R. H. Hutton.\n SHELLEY J. A. Symonds.\n HUME T. H. Huxley.\n GOLDSMITH William Black.\n DEFOE William Minto.\n BURNS J. C. Shairp.\n SPENSER R. W. Church.\n THACKERAY Anthony Trollope.\n BURKE John Morley.\n MILTON Mark Pattison.\n HAWTHORNE Henry James, Jr.\n SOUTHEY E. Dowden.\n CHAUCER A. W. Ward.\n BUNYAN J. A. Froude.\n COWPER Goldwin Smith.\n POPE Leslie Stephen.\n BYRON John Nichol.\n LOCKE Thomas Fowler.\n WORDSWORTH F. Myers.\n DRYDEN G. Saintsbury.\n LANDOR Sidney Colvin.\n DE QUINCEY David Masson.\n LAMB Alfred Ainger.\n BENTLEY R. C. Jebb.\n DICKENS A. W. Ward.\n GRAY E. W. Gosse.\n SWIFT Leslie Stephen.\n STERNE H. D. Traill.\n MACAULAY J. Cotter Morison.\n FIELDING Austin Dobson.\n SHERIDAN Mrs. Oliphant.\n ADDISON W. J. Courthope.\n BACON R. W. Church.\n COLERIDGE H. D. Traill.\n SIR PHILIP SIDNEY J. A. Symonds.\n\n12mo, Cloth, 75 cents per volume.\n\nPUBLISHED BY HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK.\n\n_Any of the above works will be sent by mail, postage prepaid, to any\npart of the United States, on receipt of the price._\n\n * * * * * *\n\n\n\nNOTE.\n\n\nIn writing the chapters on Locke's Life, I have derived much\ninformation from the biographies of Lord King and Mr. Fox Bourne,\nespecially from the latter, which contains a large amount of most\ninteresting documents never before printed. In a work like the present,\nwhere numerous foot-notes would be out of place, I am obliged to\ncontent myself with this general acknowledgment. I may add that I\nhave also referred to several other authorities, both printed and in\nmanuscript; and, in some cases, I believe that my account will be found\nmore precise than that given in the larger biographies.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n PAGE\n LOCKE'S BOYHOOD.--HIS EARLY LIFE IN OXFORD 1\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n MEDICAL STUDIES.--PUBLIC EMPLOYMENTS.--CONNEXION\n WITH SHAFTESBURY 12\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n RESIDENCE IN FRANCE.--FURTHER RELATIONS WITH\n SHAFTESBURY.--EXPULSION FROM CHRIST CHURCH. 28\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n RESIDENCE IN HOLLAND.--THE REVOLUTION.--RETURN\n TO ENGLAND.--PUBLICATION OF THE \"ESSAY\" AND\n OTHER WORKS 44\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n LIFE AT OATES.--FRIENDSHIPS.--FURTHER PUBLICATIONS 62\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n POLITICAL AFFAIRS.--PUBLIC OCCUPATIONS.--RELATIONS\n WITH THE KING 82\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\n CONTROVERSY WITH STILLINGFLEET.--OTHER LITERARY\n OCCUPATIONS.--DOMESTIC LIFE.--PETER KING.--LATTER\n YEARS.--DEATH 102\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n ESSAY ON HUMAN UNDERSTANDING 127\n\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\n LOCKE'S OPINIONS ON RELIGION AND MORALS, AND HIS\n THEOLOGICAL WRITINGS 152\n\n\n CHAPTER X.\n\n THE THOUGHTS ON EDUCATION AND THE CONDUCT OF\n THE UNDERSTANDING 168\n\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n\n WORKS ON GOVERNMENT, TRADE, AND FINANCE 179\n\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n\n LOCKE'S INFLUENCE ON THOUGHT 194\n\n\n\n\nLOCKE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nLOCKE'S BOYHOOD.--HIS EARLY LIFE IN OXFORD.\n\n\nJohn Locke, perhaps the greatest, but certainly the most\ncharacteristic, of English philosophers, was born at Wrington, a\npleasant village in the north of Somersetshire, August 29, 1632. His\nfamily, however, resided in the village of Pensford, and the parish of\nPublow, within a few miles of Bristol. It was there, probably, that\nLocke spent the greater part of his early life. His mother appears to\nhave died while he was young. From his father, John Locke (b. 1606),\nwho seems to have inherited a fair estate, and who practised, with\nsome success, as a country attorney, he probably derived, if not his\nearliest instruction, at least some of his earliest influences and some\nof his most sterling characteristics. \"From Mr. Locke I have often\nheard of his father,\" says Lady Masham in a MS. letter quoted by Mr.\nFox-Bourne in his Life of Locke, \"that he was a man of parts. Mr. Locke\nnever mentioned him but with great respect and affection. His father\nused a conduct towards him when young that he often spoke of afterwards\nwith great approbation. It was the being severe to him by keeping him\nin much awe and at a distance when he was a boy, but relaxing, still\nby degrees, of that severity as he grew up to be a man, till, he being\nbecome capable of it, he lived perfectly with him as a friend. And I\nremember he has told me that his father, after he was a man, solemnly\nasked his pardon for having struck him once in a passion when he was a\nboy.\"\n\nLocke's boyhood coincided pretty nearly with the troubles of the Civil\nWars. \"I no sooner perceived myself in the world,\" he wrote in 1660,\n\"but I found myself in a storm which has lasted almost hitherto.\"\nHis father, when Locke was hardly ten years old, publicly announced,\nin the parish church of Publow, his assent to the protest of the\nLong Parliament, and, a few weeks afterwards, took the field, on the\nParliamentary side, as captain of a troop of horse in a regiment of\nvolunteers. Though the fortunes of the family undoubtedly suffered\nfrom this step on the part of the young attorney, the political and\nreligious interests which it created and kept alive in his household\nmust have contributed, in no small degree, to shape the character and\ndetermine the sympathies of his elder son.\n\nLocke, then, may be regarded as having been fortunate in his early\nsurroundings. Born in one of the more charming of the rural districts\nof England, not far, however, from a city which was then one of\nthe most important centres of commerce and politics; sprung from\nrespectable and well-to-do parents, of whom the father, at least,\npossessed more than ordinary intelligence; accustomed, from his\nearliest boyhood, to watch the progress of great events, and to listen\nto the discussion of great and stirring questions; there seems to have\nbeen nothing in his early life to retard or mar the development of his\ngenius, and much that we may not unreasonably connect with the marked\npeculiarities, both moral and intellectual, of his subsequent career.\n\nIt was probably in the year 1646 that, through the interest of Colonel\nPopham, a friend and client of his father, Locke was admitted at\nWestminster School, where, probably in the following year, he was\nelected on the foundation. Here he must have remained about six years,\ntill his election to a Westminster Studentship at Christ Church,\nOxford, in 1652. Of the manner in which Locke spent these years we\nhave no definite information. The stern disciplinarian, Dr. Busby, had\nbeen head master for about eight years when he entered the school, and\namong his schoolfellows, senior to him by about a year, were Dryden\nand South. The friends whom he made at Westminster, though highly\nrespectable in after-life, did not achieve any great reputation. Of\nthe studies which then constituted the ordinary school curriculum,\nhis matured opinions are to be found in the \"Thoughts concerning\nEducation,\" which will be described in a subsequent chapter. To judge\nfrom this book, the impressions left on Locke's mind by our English\npublic school education were not of a pleasant or favourable kind.\n\nLocke appears to have commenced his residence at Christ Church in the\nMichaelmas Term of 1652, soon after he had turned twenty years of age.\nHis matriculation before the Vice-Chancellor bears date Nov. 27. Since\nthe outbreak of the Civil Wars, both the University and the College had\nundergone many vicissitudes. At the moment when Locke entered, Cromwell\nwas Chancellor; and Dr. John Owen, who was destined to be for some time\nthe leading resident, had been recently appointed Dean of Christ Church\nand Vice-Chancellor of the University. Owen was an Independent, and,\nfor a divine of that age, a man of remarkably tolerant and liberal\nviews. Though, then as now, a dignitary in Owen's position probably had\nand could have but little intercourse with the junior members of his\nsociety, it is not improbable that Locke may have derived his first\nbias towards those opinions on the question of religious toleration,\nfor which he afterwards became so famous, from the publications and\nthe practice of the Puritan Dean of Christ Church. Locke's tutor was a\nMr. Cole, afterwards Principal of St. Mary Hall, but of his relations\nwith his pupil we hear nothing of any importance. Wood calls him a\n\"fanatical tutor;\" by which, of course, he does not mean more than that\nhe was a Puritan.\n\nDuring the Civil Wars the discipline and reputation of the\nUniversities, however we may apportion the blame, seem to have\nsuffered most severely. In these troublous times, indeed, it could\nhardly be otherwise. There is considerable evidence to show that,\nin the Little or Barebones Parliament of 1653, there was a serious\nattempt to suppress the Colleges and Universities altogether, and to\napply the proceeds of their estates, as Clarendon tells us, \"for the\npublic service, and to ease the people from the payment of taxes and\ncontributions.\" If such an attempt ever had any chance of success--and\nfrom an oration of Dr. Owen we may infer that it had--it must have\nspread consternation amongst University circles, and been a frequent\nsubject of conversation during the early period of Locke's residence\nin Oxford. But the Puritan party, which was now in the ascendant, was\ndetermined that, at any rate, no handle should be given to the enemy by\nany lack of discipline or by the infrequency of religious exercises.\n\"Frequent preaching in every house,\" Anthony \u00e0 Wood tells us, \"was\nthe chief matter aimed at\" by the Visitors appointed by Cromwell in\n1652. Thus, on June 27, 1653, they ordered that \"all Bachelors of\nArts and Undergraduates in Colleges and Halls be required, every\nLord's day, to give an account to some person of known ability and\npiety of the sermons they had heard and their attendance on other\nreligious exercises that day. The Heads also or Deputies of the said\nSocieties, with all above the Degree of Bachelor, were then ordered\nto be personally present at the performance of the said exercise, and\nto take care that it be attended with prayer and such other duties of\nreligion as are proper to such a meeting.\" In addition to the Sunday\nobservances, there were also, in most Colleges, if not in all, one or\ntwo sermons or religious meetings in the course of the week. Locke, if\nwe may judge from his character in later years, must have occasionally\nfound these tedious, and doubtless lengthy, exercises somewhat\nirksome and unprofitable. But we do not meet in his writings with any\ndefinite complaints of them, as we do of the scholastic disputations\nand some other parts of the academical course as pursued at that\ntime. Of the disputations, which then constituted a very important\nelement in the University curriculum, he expresses an unfavourable,\nperhaps too unfavourable an opinion. Writing in 1690, in the \"Thoughts\nconcerning Education,\" he says: \"If the use and end of right\nreasoning be to have right notions and a right judgment of things, to\ndistinguish between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, and to act\naccordingly, be sure not to let your son be bred up in the art and\nformality of disputing--either practising it himself or admiring it\nin others--unless, instead of an able man, you desire to have him an\ninsignificant wrangler, opiniator in discourse, and priding himself\nin contradicting others; or, which is worse, questioning everything,\nand thinking there is no such thing as truth to be sought, but only\nvictory, in disputing. There cannot be anything so disingenuous, so\nunbecoming a gentleman, or any one who pretends to be a rational\ncreature, as not to yield to plain reason and the conviction of clear\narguments. Is there anything more inconsistent with civil conversation,\nand the end of all debate, than not to take an answer, though ever so\nfull and satisfactory?... For this, in short, is the way and perfection\nof logical disputes, that the opponent never takes any answer, nor the\nrespondent ever yields to any argument.\" With the logic and rhetoric,\nthe Latin speaking and Latin writing, then in vogue, Locke is almost\nequally discontented. In fact, he looked back, in after-life, with\nlittle gratitude on the somewhat dry course of studies which the\nUniversity then prescribed to its younger scholars. \"I have often heard\nhim say, in reference to his first years spent in the University,\" says\nLady Masham, \"that he had so small satisfaction there from his studies,\nas finding very little light brought thereby to his understanding, that\nhe became discontented with his manner of life, and wished his father\nhad rather designed him for anything else than what he was destined to,\napprehending that his no greater progress in knowledge proceeded from\nhis not being fitted or capacitated to be a scholar.\" We must, however,\nby no means infer that Locke had not derived considerable benefit\nfrom the discipline which he disparages. At any rate, the scholastic\nteaching of Oxford had a large share in forming, by reaction, many of\nhis most characteristic opinions, while the Essay, in almost every\npage, bears distinctive marks of his early studies. Notwithstanding\nhis depreciation, amounting often to ridicule, of the subjects he had\nlearnt in his youth, we can hardly doubt that, if Locke had been\nbrought up in an University where logic and philosophy did not form\npart of the course, his greatest work would never have been written.\n\nMr. Fox-Bourne attempts to supply a detailed account of the lectures\nwhich Locke attended, and the course of studies which he pursued,\nduring his undergraduate and bachelor days. This account, however,\nbetrays an innocent belief in the rigid enforcement and observance of\nUniversity and College statutes which, I am sorry to say, I cannot\nshare. Minute regulations regarding courses of study and attendance at\nlectures are apt very soon to fall into desuetude, and it is impossible\nnow to reconstruct with any accuracy, from the perusal of merely formal\ndocuments, a plan of the student life of the Commonwealth. It is to be\nmuch regretted that Locke and his contemporaries have not left us more\nspecific information on the subject. All we can now say is that, if the\nauthorities duly enforced their statutes and regulations, especially\nthose relating to professorial lectures, many of which were appointed\nto be given at eight o'clock in the morning, the students of those days\nhad by no means an easier time of it than their successors, even in\nthese days of competition and examinations.\n\nThe stated regulations and prescribed statutes of a seat of learning\nhave, however, often far less to do with the formation of a student's\nmind than the society of the young men of his own age with whom his\nresidence throws him into contact. Young men often educate one another\nfar more effectually than they can be educated by their tutors or their\nbooks. The mutual confidences, the lively interchange of repartee, the\nfree discussion of all manner of subjects in college rooms or during\nthe afternoon walk, are often far more stimulating and informing to\nthe intellect than the professorial lecture, however learned, or the\ntutorial catechising, however searching. Of this less formal and more\nagreeable species of education Locke appears to have enjoyed his full\nshare. He was not, according to the account which he gave of himself\nto Lady Masham, \"any very hard student,\" but \"sought the company of\npleasant and witty men, with whom he likewise took great delight in\ncorresponding by letters; and in conversation and these correspondences\nhe spent for some years much of his time.\"\n\nIt should be noticed that in the year 1654 Owen published a volume of\ncongratulatory verses addressed to Cromwell on the treaty recently\nconcluded with the Dutch, entitled \"Musarum Oxoniensium \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\n[Greek: elaiophoria].\" Among the many contributors to this volume,\nyoung and old, was Locke, who wrote a short copy of Latin, and a\nlonger copy of English verses. These compositions do not rise much\nabove, or sink much below, the ordinary level of such exercises; but\nwhat is curious is that Locke's first published efforts in literature\nshould have been in verse, especially when we bear in mind his strong\nand somewhat perverse judgment on verse-writing in \u00a7 174 of the\n\"Thoughts concerning Education.\" The fact of his having been invited to\ncontribute to the volume shows that he was regarded as one of the more\npromising young students of his time.\n\nTo the period of Locke's life covered by this chapter probably belong\nsome interesting notes on philosophy and its divisions, found in his\nfather's memorandum-book. These reflections afford evidence that he had\nalready begun to think for himself, independently of the scholastic\ntraditions. I append one or two characteristic extracts:\n\n \"Dialectic, that is Logic, is to make reasons to grow, and improve\n both Physic and also Ethic, which is Moral Philosophy.\"\n\n \"Moral Philosophy is the knowledge of precepts of all honest manners\n which reason acknowledgeth to belong and appertain to man's nature,\n as the things in which we differ from beasts. It is also necessary\n for the comely government of man's life.\"\n\n \"Necessity was the first finder-out of Moral Philosophy, and\n experience (which is a trusty teacher) was the first master thereof.\"\n\nLocke took his B.A. degree on the 14th of February, 1655-56, and his\nM.A. degree on the 29th of June, 1658, the latter on the same day\nwith Nathaniel Crewe, afterwards Lord Crewe, Bishop of Durham, and\nJoseph Glanvill, the celebrated writer on witchcraft, and author of\n_Scepsis Scientifica_. The statutable time of taking both degrees was\nanticipated, but irregularities of this kind were not then infrequent.\nOn the 24th of December, 1660, he was appointed Greek Lecturer at\nChrist Church for the ensuing year, thus taking his place among the\nauthorized teachers of his college, and so entering on a new phase of\nuniversity life. Very shortly after this date, namely, on February 13,\n1660-61, the elder Locke died, \u00e6t. fifty-four. Locke's only brother,\nThomas, who was some years younger than himself, died of consumption\nshortly after his father. By the time, therefore, that Locke had fairly\nentered on his duties as an officer of his college, he was left alone\nof all his family.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThough it was not till a much later period of his life that Locke\npublished any works, his pen was at this time by no means idle. In 1661\nhe began a series of commonplace books, often containing long articles\non the subjects which were occupying his thoughts at the time. It is,\nmoreover, to the period immediately preceding or immediately following\nthe Restoration, that Mr. Fox-Bourne attributes an unpublished and\ntill recently unknown Essay, entitled \"Reflections upon the Roman\nCommonwealth.\" Many of the remarks in this Essay already show what we\nshould call liberal opinions in religion and politics, and anticipate\nviews long afterwards propounded in the works on government and\ntoleration. The religion instituted by Numa is idealized, as having\ninsisted on only two articles of faith, the goodness of the gods, and\nthe necessity of worshipping them, \"in which worship the chief of all\nwas to be innocent, good, and just.\" Thus it avoided \"creating heresies\nand schisms,\" and \"narrowing the bottom of religion by clogging it\nwith creeds and catechisms and endless niceties about the essences,\nproperties, and attributes of God.\"\n\nOf more interest, perhaps, is another unpublished treatise, written\njust after the Restoration, in which Locke asks, and answers in the\naffirmative, the following question: Whether the civil magistrate\nmay lawfully impose and determine the use of indifferent things in\nreference to religious worship. This tract seems to have been intended\nas a remonstrance with those of the author's own party who questioned\nany right in the civil magistrate to interfere in religious matters,\nand who, therefore, were ready to reject with disdain the assurances\nof compromise and moderation contained in the king's declaration on\necclesiastical affairs, issued at the beginning of his reign. Locke\nat that time, like many other moderate men, seems to have entertained\nthe most sanguine hopes of pacification and good government under the\nrule of the new monarch. \"As for myself,\" he writes, \"there is no one\ncan have a greater respect and veneration for authority than I. I no\nsooner perceived myself in the world, but I found myself in a storm,\nwhich has lasted almost hitherto, and therefore cannot but entertain\nthe approaches of a calm with the greatest joy and satisfaction.\" \"I\nfind that a general freedom is but a general bondage, that the popular\nasserters of public liberty are the greatest ingrossers of it too, and\nnot unfitly called its keepers.\" This reaction, however, against the\npast, and these sanguine expectations of the future, can have lasted\nbut a short time. The tendencies of the new government were soon\napparent, and the pamphlet was never published.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nMEDICAL STUDIES.--PUBLIC EMPLOYMENTS.--CONNEXION WITH SHAFTESBURY.\n\n\nLocke, at the time of his father's death and his entrance on college\noffice, was in his twenty-ninth year. At the election of college\nofficers on Christmas Eve, 1662, he was transferred from the Greek\nLectureship to the Lectureship in Rhetoric, and, on the 23rd of\nDecember in the following year, he was again transferred to another\noffice. This office was the Censorship of Moral Philosophy (the\nSenior Censorship); the Censorship of Natural Philosophy (the Junior\nCensorship) he appears never to have held. On the 23rd of December,\n1665, he is no longer in office, being now merely one of the twenty\nsenior M.A. students, called \"Theologi,\" who were bound to be in\npriests' orders. Of the manner in which Locke discharged his duties\nas a lecturer we have no record. He seems also to have served in the\ncapacity of tutor to several undergraduates at this period, but of his\nrelations to his pupils we, unfortunately, know next to nothing.\n\nHow is it that Locke, holding a clerical studentship, was not a\nclergyman? The disturbed condition of the Church and the Universities\nduring the last quarter of a century had probably led to great laxity\nin the enforcement of college statutes and by-laws. Moreover, for a\ntime, it would seem, he seriously contemplated taking the step of\nentering holy orders, and the authorities of his college would probably\nbe unwilling to force upon him a hasty decision. At length, however, he\nfinally abandoned this idea, deciding in favour of the profession of\nphysic. In the ordinary course he would have forfeited his studentship,\nbut he was fortunate to obtain a royal dispensation (by no means an\nuncommon mode of intervention at that time), retaining him in his\nplace, \"that he may still have further time to prosecute his studies.\"\nThis dispensation is dated Nov. 14, 1666.\n\nMeanwhile, Locke had paid his first visit to the Continent. The\noccasion of it was an embassy to the Elector of Brandenburg, whose\nalliance or neutrality it was sought to obtain in the then pending war\nwith Holland. Sir Walter Vane was head of the embassy, and Locke, who\nprobably owed his nomination to the interest of his old schoolfellow,\nWilliam Godolphin, was appointed secretary. They left England in\nthe middle of November, 1665, and arrived at Cleve, the capital of\nBrandenburg, on the 30th of the same month (Dec. 9, N.S.). Here they\nremained for two months, the mission coming to nothing, in consequence\nof the English Government being unable or unwilling to advance the\nmoney which the Elector required as the price of his adhesion. The\nstate-papers addressed by the Ambassador to the Government at home\nare mainly in Locke's handwriting; but far more interesting than\nthese are the private letters addressed by Locke to his friends,\nMr. Strachey, of Sutton Court, near Bristol, and the celebrated\nRobert Boyle. These are full of graphic touches descriptive of the\nmanners and peculiarities of the people among whom he found himself.\nLike a conscientious sight-seer, he availed himself of the various\nopportunities of observing their eating and drinking, attended their\ndevotions--whether Catholic, Calvinist, or Lutheran--submitted himself\nto be bored by poetasters and sucking theologians, and consoled himself\nfor the difficulty of finding a pair of gloves by noting the tardiness\nof German commerce. Though he had \"thought for a while to take leave\nof all University affairs,\" he found himself ridden pitilessly by an\n\"academic goblin.\"\n\n \"I no sooner was got here, but I was welcomed with a divinity\n disputation. I was no sooner rid of that, but I found myself up to\n the ears in poetry, and overwhelmed in Helicon.\" \"But my University\n goblin left me not so; for the next day, when I thought I had been\n rode out only to airing, I was had to a foddering of chopped hay or\n logic, forsooth! Poor _materia prima_ was canvassed cruelly; stripped\n of all the gay dress of her forms, and shown naked to us, though, I\n must confess, I had not eyes good enough to see her. The young monks\n (which one would not guess by their looks) are subtle people, and\n dispute as eagerly for _materia prima_ as if they were to make their\n dinner on it, and, perhaps, sometimes it is all their meal, for which\n others' charity is more to be blamed than their stomachs.... The\n truth is, here hog-shearing is much in its glory, and our disputing\n in Oxford comes as far short of it as the rhetoric of Carfax does\n that of Billingsgate.\"\n\nAt a dinner, described with a good deal of humour, with the Franciscan\nfriars, he was still pursued by his Oxford recollections:\n\n \"The prior was a good plump fellow, that had more belly than brains;\n and methought was very fit to be reverenced, and not much unlike some\n head of a college.\"\n\nOne circumstance Locke noticed much to the advantage of the foreigners,\nnamely, their good-natured toleration for each other's opinions.\nWriting to Boyle, he says--\n\n \"The distance in their churches gets not into their houses. They\n quietly permit one another to choose their way to heaven; for I\n cannot observe any quarrels or animosities amongst them upon the\n account of religion. This good correspondence is owing partly to the\n power of the magistrate, and partly to the prudence and good-nature\n of the people, who, as I find by inquiring, entertain different\n opinions without any secret hatred or rancour.\"\n\nAnd though, like most Englishmen, of decided Protestant convictions,\ntravelling on the Continent for the first time, Locke indulged in a\ngood deal of merriment at the Catholic ceremonies, he pays, in one\nof his letters to Strachey, a cheerful tribute to the personal worth\nof the Catholic priests. He had not met, he says, with any people so\ngood-natured or so civil, and he had received many courtesies from\nthem, which he should always gratefully acknowledge.\n\n * * * * *\n\nLocke returned to England towards the end of February, 1665-66, and\nwas at once offered the post of secretary to the Earl of Sandwich, who\nwas on the point of setting out as ambassador to Spain. He wavered for\na short time, but, though doubtful whether he had not \"let slip the\nminute that they say every one has once in his life to make himself,\"\nhe finally declined the offer. Before settling down again in Oxford,\nhe spent a few weeks in Somersetshire, paying probably, amongst other\nvisits, one he had promised himself to Strachey at Sutton Court, \"a\ngreater rarity than my travels have afforded me; for one may go a long\nway before one meets a friend.\" During his stay in Somersetshire, he\nattempted to try some experiments in the Mendip lead-mines with a\nbarometer which had been sent to him for the purpose by Boyle. But the\nminers and their wives made a successful resistance. \"The sight of\nthe engine and my desire of going down some of their gruffs gave them\nterrible apprehensions. The women, too, were alarmed, and think us\nstill either projectors or conjurors.\"\n\nAt the beginning of May, Locke was again in his rooms in Oxford. He\nseems to have lost no time in setting to work afresh on the studies\nwhich might qualify him to exercise the profession of medicine. In his\nletters to Boyle, he makes frequent reference to chemical experiments\nand to collecting plants for medical purposes.\n\nIt is an unexplained circumstance that, notwithstanding a letter to\nthe Hebdomadal Board from Lord Clarendon, then Chancellor of the\nUniversity, signifying his assent to a dispensation, enabling Locke to\naccumulate the degrees of Bachelor and Doctor in Medicine, he never\ntook those degrees. The obstacle may have arisen from himself, or,\nmore probably, it may have been due to some sinister influence on the\nHebdomadal Board preventing the assent of that body to the required\ndecree. Any way, it is curious that eleven days after the date of Lord\nClarendon's letter is dated the dispensation from the Crown (already\nreferred to on page 13), enabling him to retain his studentship,\nnotwithstanding his neglect to enter holy orders.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDuring the summer of 1666, we are introduced to one of the\nturning-points in Locke's life--his first acquaintance with Lord\nShaftesbury, or, as he then was, Lord Ashley. Of the chequered career\nor the enigmatical character of this celebrated nobleman it is no\npart of my task to speak. It is enough to say that, as an advocate\nof religious toleration and an opponent alike of sacerdotal claims\nin the Church and absolutist principles in the State, he appealed to\nLocke's warmest and deepest sympathies. The acquaintance was made\nthrough David Thomas, an Oxford physician, and the occasion of it was\nLord Ashley's coming to Oxford to drink the Astrop waters. The duty of\nproviding these waters (Astrop being a village at some distance from\nOxford) seems to have been entrusted by Thomas to Locke, but, there\nhaving been some miscarriage, Locke waited on Lord Ashley to excuse the\ndelay. \"My lord,\" says Lady Masham, \"in his wonted manner, received\nhim very civilly, accepting his excuse with great easiness, and, when\nMr. Locke would have taken his leave of him, would needs have him to\nstay supper with him, being much pleased with his conversation. But\nif my lord was pleased with the company of Mr. Locke, Mr. Locke was\nyet more so with that of my Lord Ashley.\" The result of this short\nand apparently accidental interview was the beginning of an intimate\nfriendship, which seems never afterwards to have been broken, and which\nexercised a decisive influence on the rest of Locke's career.\n\nOn September 2 of this year broke out the Great Fire of London, which\nraged without intermission for three days and nights. Under the date\nof September 3 we find in Locke's \"Register,\" which was afterwards\npublished in Boyle's _General History of the Air_, this curious\nentry:--\"Dim reddish sunshine. This unusual colour of the air, which,\nwithout a cloud appearing, made the sunbeams of a strange red dim\nlight, was very remarkable. We had then heard nothing of the fire of\nLondon; but it appeared afterwards to be the smoke of London, then\nburning, which, driven this way by an easterly wind, caused this odd\nphenomenon.\" The Register, in which this entry is made begins on June\n24, 1666, and contains, with many intermissions, the observations made\nby Locke, in Oxford and London, up to June 30, 1683, on the readings\nof the \"thermoscope,\" the \"baroscope,\" and the \"hygroscope,\" together\nwith the direction of the wind and the state of the weather. It not\nonly affords valuable evidence of Locke's whereabouts at different\ntimes, but also shows the interest which he took in physical research.\n\nIn the early summer of 1667, Locke appears to have taken up his\nresidence with Lord Ashley in London, and \"from that time,\" according\nto Lady Masham, \"he was with my Lord Ashley as a man at home, and\nlived in that family much esteemed, not only by my lord, but by all\nthe friends of the family.\" His residence in Lord Ashley's family was,\nhowever, probably broken by occasional visits to Oxford.\n\nTo this period of Locke's life may be assigned the unpublished _Essay\nconcerning Toleration_, which, with so much other valuable matter,\nis now for the first time accessible to the general reader in Mr.\nFox-Bourne's _Life_. This _Essay_, it is not improbable, was written\nat the suggestion, or for the guidance of Lord Ashley, and so may\nhave been widely circulated amongst the advocates of \"toleration\" and\n\"comprehension\"--words which were at that time in the mouth of every\nman who took any interest in religion or politics. As I shall have to\nspeak expressly of the published _Letters on Toleration_, which were\nwritten about twenty years later, and which contain substantially the\nsame views as this earlier _Essay_, I shall not here detain the reader\nfurther than by giving him the general conclusions at which Locke had\nnow arrived. These may be stated summarily under three heads: first,\n\"all speculative opinions and religious worship have a clear title\nto universal toleration,\" and in these every man may use \"a perfect\nuncontrollable liberty, without any guilt or sin at all, provided\nalways that it be all done sincerely and out of conscience to God,\naccording to the best of his knowledge and persuasion;\" secondly,\n\"there are some opinions and actions which are in their natural\ntendency absolutely destructive to human society--as, that faith may\nbe broken with heretics; that one is bound to broach and propagate any\nopinion he believes himself; and such like; and, in actions, all manner\nof frauds and injustice--and these the magistrate ought not to tolerate\nat all;\" thirdly, another class of opinions and actions, inasmuch as\ntheir \"influence to good or bad\" depends on \"the temper of the state\nand posture of affairs,\" \"have a right to toleration so far only as\nthey do not interfere with the advantages of the public, or serve any\nway to disturb the government.\" The practical result of the discussion\nis, that while \"papists\" should not \"enjoy the benefit of toleration,\nbecause where they have power they think themselves bound to deny\nit to others,\" the \"fanatics,\" as the various classes of Protestant\nDissenters were then called, should be at least \"tolerated,\" if not\n\"comprehended\" in the national Church. Indeed, as to \"comprehension,\"\nLocke lays down the general principle that \"your articles in\nspeculative opinions should be few and large, and your ceremonies in\nworship few and easy--which is latitudinism.\"\n\nThis must have been one of the quietest and happiest periods of Locke's\nlife. He seems to have been unobtrusively pursuing his studies, and\ngradually making the acquaintance of the great world and of public\naffairs through the facilities which his residence with Lord Ashley\nafforded him. Both his own occupations and his relations to the Ashley\nfamily appear to have been of a very miscellaneous kind. Medicine,\nphilosophy, and politics engaged his attention by turns. To Lord Ashley\nand his family he was at once general adviser, doctor, and friend. In\nJune, 1668, after consulting various other medical men, he performed\non Lord Ashley a difficult operation for the purpose of removing an\n\"imposthume in the breast,\" and is said thus to have saved his life.\nTo the only child, Anthony Ashley, he acted as tutor. But, by the\ntime the youth was seventeen, Locke was entrusted with a far more\ndelicate business than his tuition. This was no less than finding him\na wife. After other young ladies had been considered and rejected,\nLocke accompanied his charge on a visit to the Earl of Rutland, at\nBelvoir Castle, and negotiated a match with the Earl's daughter, the\nLady Dorothy Manners. The match seems to have been a happy one; and\nLocke continued his services of general utility to the Ashley family by\nacting on more than one occasion as Lady Dorothy's medical attendant.\nOn the 26th of February, 1670-71, he assisted at the birth of a son\nand heir, Anthony, who subsequently became third Earl of Shaftesbury,\nand who, as the author of the _Characteristics_, occupies a position\nof no inconsiderable importance in the history of English philosophy.\nIt is on the evidence of this Earl of Shaftesbury that we learn the\nshare taken by Locke in effecting the union of his father and mother.\n\"My father was too young and inexperienced to choose a wife for\nhimself, and my grandfather too much in business to choose one for\nhim.\" The consequence was, that \"all was thrown upon Mr. Locke, who\nbeing already so good a judge of men, my grandfather doubted not of his\nequal judgment in women. He departed from him, entrusted and sworn, as\nAbraham's head servant 'that ruled over all that he had,' and went into\na far country 'to seek for his son a wife,' whom he as successfully\nfound.\"\n\nThough so much of Locke's time seems to have been spent on medical\nstudies and practice, he possessed no regular qualification. In\n1670 another attempt had been made, but in vain, to procure him the\nDoctor of Medicine's degree from the University of Oxford. Lord Ashley\nsuccessfully enlisted the good services of the Duke of Ormond, the\nChancellor of the University; but on learning the opposition of Dean\nFell and Dr. Allestree, Locke desired his patron to withdraw the\napplication. Both now and on the former occasion, alluded to above (p.\n16), the opposition was probably based on Locke's tendencies, known or\nsuspected, to liberal views in religion; nor would the connexion with\nLord Ashley be at all likely to mitigate the sternness of the college\nand university authorities. It had, of course, all along been open to\nhim to proceed to the Doctor's degree in the ordinary way, by attending\nlectures and performing exercises; and whether he was prevented from\ndoing so by the tediousness of the process, by the hope of attaining\nthe degree through a shorter and easier method, or by a certain amount\nof indecision as to whether after all he would adopt the medical\nprofession, we cannot say. Afterwards, we shall see, he proceeded to\nthe degree of Bachelor of Medicine, but whether in the ordinary course,\nor by dispensation, is not known.\n\nAs connected with Locke's medical pursuits, I may here mention his\nfriendship with Sydenham. We do not know when the acquaintance\ncommenced, but Sydenham writing to Boyle, so early as April 2, 1668,\nspeaks of \"my friend Mr. Locke.\" That Sydenham entertained great\nrespect for the medical skill and judgment of Locke--who appears to\nhave accompanied him in his visits to his patients, and, in turn, to\nhave availed himself of Sydenham's assistance in attending the Ashley\nhousehold--there can be no doubt. Writing to Mapletoft, their common\nfriend, and a physician of some eminence, in 1676, he says: \"You\nknow how thoroughly my method [of curing fevers] is approved of by\nan intimate and common friend of ours, and one who has closely and\nexhaustively examined the subject--I mean Mr. John Locke, a man whom,\nin the acuteness of his intellect, in the steadiness of his judgment,\nand in the simplicity, that is, in the excellence, of his manners, I\nconfidently declare to have amongst the men of our own time few equals\nand no superior.\" A number of notes and papers, still extant, attest\nthe interest which Locke now took in medical studies, and the hopes\nwith which he looked forward to improvements in medical practice. That\nthe sympathy between him and Sydenham was very close, is evident from\nthe writings of both.\n\nBut, meanwhile, he was also busy with other pursuits. One of these was\nthe administration, under Ashley, and the other \"lords proprietors,\" of\nthe colony of Carolina. In 1663 this colony had been granted by Charles\nthe Second to eight \"lords proprietors,\" of whom Ashley was one. Locke,\nwhen he went to live in Ashley's family, appears to have become, though\nwithout any formal appointment, a sort of chief secretary and manager\nto the association. A vast amount of miscellaneous business seems to\nhave been transacted by him in this capacity; but what to us would be\nmost interesting, if we could determine it, would be the share he took\nin drawing up the document entitled \"The Fundamental Constitutions of\nCarolina,\" issued on the 1st of March, 1669-70. Many of the articles,\nembodying, as they do, a sort of modified feudalism, must have been\ndistasteful to Locke, and it is hardly possible to suppose that he\nwas the originator of them. But perhaps we may trace his hand in the\narticles on religion, between which and his views, as stated in his\nunpublished papers written before and his published works written\nafter this time, there is a large amount of correspondence. No man was\nto be permitted to be a freeman of Carolina unless he acknowledged a\nGod, and agreed that God was to be publicly and solemnly worshipped.\nBut within these limits any seven persons might constitute a church,\nprovided that they upheld the duty of every man, if called on, to bear\nwitness to the truth, and agreed on some external symbol by which such\nwitness might be signified. Any one, however, who did not belong to\nsome such communion was to be regarded as outside the protection of\nthe law. The members of one church were not to molest or persecute\nthose of another; and no man was to \"use any reproachful, reviling, or\nabusive language against the religion of any church or profession, that\nbeing the certain way of disturbing the peace, and of hindering the\nconversion of any to the truth.\" Amongst the miscellaneous provisions\nin this code is one strictly forbidding any one to plead before a court\nof justice for money or reward; and another, enacting that \"every\nfreeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his\nnegro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever.\"\n\nIn 1668 Locke was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1669\nand 1672 was placed on the Council, but he never appears to have taken\nmuch part in the proceedings of the society. On the other hand, there\nseem to have been certain less formal meetings of a few friends,\nconstituting possibly a sort of club, in the discussions of which\nhe took a more active share. It was at one of these meetings that\nthe conversation took place which led to Locke's writing his famous\n_Essay_ (see page 127). According to a marginal note made by Sir James\nTyrrell in his copy of the first edition, now in the British Museum,\nthe discussion on this occasion turned on \"the principles of morality\nand revealed religion.\" The date of this memorable meeting was,\naccording to the same authority, the winter of 1673; but according to\nLady Masham, it was 1670 or 1671. Any way, there is an entry on the\nmain subject of the _Essay_ in Locke's Common-place Book, beginning\n\"Sic cogitavit de intellectu humano Johannes Locke, anno 1671.\" In\nthis brief entry the origin of all knowledge is referred to sense, and\n\"sensible qualities\" are stated to be \"the simplest ideas we have, and\nthe first object of our understanding\"--a theory which, as we shall\nhereafter see, was supplemented in the _Essay_ by the addition to\nthe ultimate sources of knowledge of simple ideas of reflection. The\n_Essay_ itself was not published till nearly twenty years after this\ndate, in 1690.\n\nLocke's health had never been strong, and, in the years 1670-72 he\nseems to have suffered much from a troublesome cough, indicative\nof disease of the lungs. Connected with this illness was a short\njourney which he made in France, in the suite of the Countess of\nNorthumberland, in the autumn of 1672. Soon after his return, his\npatron, who had lately been created Earl of Shaftesbury, was appointed\nto the highest office of the State, the Lord High Chancellorship of\nEngland. Locke shared in his good fortune, and was made Secretary of\nPresentations--that is, of the Chancellor's church patronage--with\na salary of 300_l._ a year. The modern reader, especially when he\nrecollects Locke's intimacy with Shaftesbury, is surprised to find\nthat he dined at the Steward's table, that he was expected to attend\nprayers three times a day, and that, when the Chancellor drove out in\nstate, he was accustomed, with the other secretaries, to walk by the\nside of the coach, while, as \"my lord\" got in and out, he \"went before\nhim bareheaded.\" The distinctions of rank were, however, far more\nmarked in those days than at present, and the high officers of state\nwere still surrounded with much of the elaborate ceremonial which had\nobtained in the times of the Tudors.\n\nTo the period of Locke's excursion in France, or that immediately\nsucceeding it, we may refer a free translation--or rather,\nadaptation--of three of the _Essais de Morale_ of Pierre Nicole, a\nwell-known Jansenist, and the friend of Pascal and Arnauld. These\n_Essays_, which were translated for the use of the Countess of\nShaftesbury, were apparently not designed for publication, and, in\nfact, were first given to the world by Dr. Hancock, in 1828. They are\nmainly remarkable as affording evidence of the depth and sincerity of\nLocke's religious convictions.\n\nRoutine and official duties now occupied much of his time, and must\nhave interfered sadly with his favourite studies. From discussing the\ntangled and ambiguous politics of this period I purposely refrain; but\nthere is one official act, recorded of Locke at this time, which places\nhim in so incongruous a light that his biographer can hardly pass it\nover in silence. At the opening of the Parliament which met on February\n4, 1672-73, Shaftesbury, amplifying the King's Speech, made, though it\nis said unwillingly and with much concern, his famous defence of the\nDutch war, and his attack on the Dutch nation, culminating in the words\n\"Delenda est Carthago.\" Locke, we are sorry to find, though the act was\na purely ministerial one, stood at his elbow with a written copy, to\nprompt him in case of failure.\n\nOn the 9th of November, 1673, Shaftesbury, who had incurred the\ndispleasure of the king by his support of the Test Bill, and who was\nnow looked on as one of the principal leaders of the Anti-Catholic\nparty, was summarily dismissed from the Chancellorship. Locke, of\ncourse, lost at the same time the Secretaryship of Presentations; but\nhe did not, as meaner men might have done, try to insinuate himself\ninto wealth and power through other avenues. \"When my grandfather,\"\nsays the third Earl of Shaftesbury, \"quitted the Court, and began to\nbe in danger from it, Mr. Locke now shared with him in dangers, as\nbefore in honours and advantages. He entrusted him with his secretest\nnegotiations, and made use of his assistant pen in matters that nearly\nconcerned the State and were fit to be made public.\"\n\nLocke's connexion with the affairs of the colony of Carolina has\nalready been mentioned. Business of this kind, owing to his relations\nwith Shaftesbury, multiplied upon him, and on the 15th of October,\n1673, shortly before Shaftesbury's fall, he was sworn in as Secretary\nto the Council of Trade and Foreign Plantations, with a salary of\n500_l._ a year. This office he retained, notwithstanding the fall of\nhis patron, till the dissolution of the Council on the 12th of March,\n1674-75; but it appears that his salary was never paid.\n\nOn February 6, 1674-75, Locke proceeded to the degree of Bachelor of\nMedicine, having already been appointed to, or more probably promised,\na Faculty Studentship at Ch. Ch., or, as Dean Prideaux, who had no love\nfor him, puts it, \"having wriggled into Ireland's faculty place.\" It\nis curious that his name does not appear in the Ch. Ch. books among\nthe Faculty Students till the second quarter of 1675, and during that\nand the two subsequent quarters it is erased. The first time the name\noccurs without an erasure is in the first quarter of 1676. That there\nwas much irregularity in the mode of appointing to College places at\nthis time is evident.\n\nHis studentship being now secure, Lord Shaftesbury having, for a\nconsideration in ready money, granted him an annuity of 100_l._ a\nyear, and his estates in Somersetshire, as well as one or two loans\nand mortgages, bringing him in a modest sum in addition, Locke,\nnotwithstanding the non-payment of his salary as Secretary to the\nCouncil of Trade and Plantations, must have been in fairly comfortable\ncircumstances. He was dispensed from the necessity of practising a\nprofession, and, being also relieved from the pressure of public\naffairs, was free to follow his bent. It is probably to the leisure\nalmost enforced upon him by the weakness of his health, as well as by\nthe turn which public affairs had taken, and rendered possible by the\nindependence of his position, that we are indebted for the maturity of\nreflection which forms so characteristic a feature of his subsequent\nwritings.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nRESIDENCE IN FRANCE.--FURTHER RELATIONS WITH SHAFTESBURY.--EXPULSION\nFROM CHRIST CHURCH.\n\n\nThe state of Locke's health had long rendered it desirable that he\nshould reside in a warmer climate, and his release from official duties\nnow removed any obstacle that there might formerly have been to his\nabsence from England. The place which he selected for his retirement\nwas Montpellier, at that time the most usual place of resort for\ninvalids who were able to leave their own country. He left London about\nthe middle of November, 1675, with one if not more companions, and,\nafter experiencing the ordinary inconveniences of travel in those days\nof slow locomotion and poor inns, arrived at Paris on Nov. 24, and at\nLyons on Dec. 11. At Lyons, he remarks of the library at the Jesuits'\nCollege that it \"is the best that ever I saw, except Oxford, being one\nvery high oblong square, with a gallery round, to come at the books.\"\nAs before, in the North of Germany, so now in the South of France,\nhe is a diligent observer of everything of interest, whether in the\nway of customs, occupations, or buildings, that falls in his way. He\nreached Montpellier on Christmas Day, and, except when making short\nexcursions in the neighbourhood, resided there continuously till the\nearly spring of 1677, a period of fourteen months. At Montpellier I\nhave not been able to find any trace of him, either in the library\nor elsewhere, but his journal shows that he was much interested in\nthe trade and products of the country, as well as in the objects\nwhich usually excite the curiosity of travellers. At Shaftesbury's\ninstigation he wrote a little treatise, entitled, \"Observations upon\nthe Growth and Culture of Vines and Olives, the Production of Silk,\nand the Preservation of Fruits.\" It is curious that this small tract\nwas never published till 1766. It enumerates no less than forty-one\nvarieties of grapes, and thirteen varieties of olives, which were\ngrown in the neighbourhood of Montpellier. The ceremonial and doings\nof the States of Languedoc attracted Locke's attention, but he does\nnot seem to have been present at their deliberations. He witnessed,\nhowever, their devotions at the Church of Notre Dame, and remarks that\nthe Cardinal Archbishop of Narbonne, who took part in the offices,\nkept \"talking every now and then, and laughing with the bishops next\nhim.\" The increasing incidence of the taxation on the lower and middle\norders, and the growing poverty of the people, were topics which could\nhardly fail to arrest the attention of any intelligent traveller at\nthat time. \"The rent of lands in France is fallen one half in these\nfew years, by reason of the poverty of the people. Merchants and\nhandicraftsmen pay near half their gains.\" Among the more interesting\nentries in his journal are the following:--March 18 (N.S.). \"Monsieur\nRennaie, a gentleman of the town, in whose house Sir J. Rushworth lay,\nabout four years ago, sacrificed a child to the devil--a child of a\nservant of his own--upon a design to get the devil to be his friend\nand help him to get some money. Several murders committed here since\nI came, and more attempted; one by a brother on his sister, in the\nhouse where I lay.\" March 22 (N.S.): \"The new philosophy of Des Cartes\nprohibited to be taught in universities, schools, and academies.\" It is\nplain from the journal that Locke's mind was now busy with the class\nof questions which were afterwards treated in the Essay: reflections\non space, the extent of possible knowledge, the objects and modes of\nstudy, etc., being curiously interspersed with his notes of travel. In\nrespect of health, he does not seem to have benefited much by his stay\nat Montpellier, which, as before stated, he left in the early spring of\n1677. By slow stages he travelled to Paris, where he joined a pupil,\nthe son of Sir John Banks, who had been commended to his supervision\nby Shaftesbury. This tutorial engagement lasted for nearly two years,\nand, in consequence of it, Locke remained in France longer than he had\noriginally intended. In a letter written to his old friend Mapletoft\nfrom Paris in June, 1677, after some playful allusions to Mapletoft's\nlove affairs, he says:--\"My health is the only mistress I have a long\ntime courted, and is so coy a one that I think it will take up the\nremainder of my days to obtain her good graces and keep her in good\nhumour.\" There can be no question that, at this time, the state of his\nhealth was a matter of very serious concern to him, and it may possibly\nhave been the cause of his not marrying. While in Paris he probably\ntook a pretty complete holiday, seeing the sights, however, making\noccasional excursions, forming new acquaintances, and exercising a\ngeneral supervision over the education of his young charge.\n\nAt the end of June, 1678, Locke, accompanied probably by his pupil,\nleft Paris with the view of making his way leisurely to Montpellier,\nand thence to Rome. He travelled westward by way of Orleans, Blois,\nand Angers. On the banks of the Loire he noticed the poverty-stricken\nappearance of the country. \"Many of the towns they call bourgs; but,\nconsidering how poor and few the houses in most of them are, would in\nEngland scarce amount to villages. The houses generally were but one\nstory.... The gentlemen's seats, of which we saw many, were most of\nthem rather bearing marks of decay than of thriving and being well\nkept.\" Montpellier was reached early in October, and, after a short\nstay there, he went on to Lyons, with the view of commencing his\njourney to Rome. But the depth of the snow on Mont Cenis was fatal to\nthis design. Twice Locke had formed plans to visit Rome, \"the time set,\nthe company agreed,\" and both times he had been disappointed. \"Were I\nnot accustomed,\" he says, \"to have fortune to dispose of me contrary\nto my design and expectation, I should be very angry to be thus turned\nout of my way, when I made sure in a few days to mount the Capitol and\ntrace the footsteps of the Scipios and the C\u00e6sars.\" He had now nothing\nleft but to turn back to Paris, where he remained till the following\nApril. Here he seems to have spent his time in the same miscellaneous\noccupations as before. In the journal we find the following entry,\ndated Feb. 13:--\"I saw the library of M. de Thou, a great collection\nof choice, well-bound books, which are now to be sold; amongst others,\na Greek manuscript, written by one Angelot, by which Stephens's Greek\ncharacters were first made.\" De Thou, the celebrated historian of his\nown times, is better known under his Latinized name, Thuanus. On a\nFriday, he notes:--\"The observation of Lent at Paris is come almost to\nnothing. Meat is openly to be had in the shambles, and a dispensation\ncommonly to be had from the curate without difficulty. People of sense\nlaugh at it, and in Italy itself, for twenty sous, a dispensation is\ncertainly to be had.\" Then follows an amusing story of \"that Bishop of\nBellay, who has writ so much against monks and monkery.\"\n\n \"A devout lady being sick, and besieged by the Carmes, made her will\n and gave them all: the Bishop of Bellay coming to see her, after it\n was done, asked whether she had made her will; she answered yes, and\n told him how; he convinced her it was not well, and she, desiring\n to alter it, found a difficulty how to do it, being so beset by the\n friars. The bishop bid her not trouble herself for it, but presently\n took order that two notaries, habited as physicians, should come to\n her, who being by her bedside, the bishop told the company it was\n convenient all should withdraw; and so the former will was revoked,\n and a new one made and put into the bishop's hands. The lady dies,\n the Carmes produce their will, and for some time the bishop lets them\n enjoy the pleasure of their inheritance; but at last, taking out the\n other will, he says to them, 'Mes fr\u00e8res, you are the sons of Elijah,\n children of the Old Testament, and have no share in the New.'\"\n\nIt may have been the influence of fashion, and the eager thirst for\nreputation, which were so rife in Parisian society, that inspired,\nshortly after Locke's return to Paris, the following reflections, as\nprofound as they are true:--\n\n \"The principal spring from which the actions of men take their rise,\n the rule they conduct them by, and the end to which they direct\n them, seems to be credit and reputation, and that which, at any\n rate, they avoid is in the greatest part shame and disgrace. This\n makes the Hurons and other people of Canada with such constancy\n endure inexpressible torments; this makes merchants in one country\n and soldiers in another; this puts men upon school divinity in one\n country and physics and mathematics in another; this cuts out the\n dresses for the women, and makes the fashions for the men, and makes\n them endure the inconveniences of all.... Religions are upheld by\n this and factions maintained, and the shame of being disesteemed\n by those with whom one hath lived, and to whom one would recommend\n oneself, is the great source and director of most of the actions\n of men.... He therefore that would govern the world well, had need\n consider rather what fashions he makes than what laws; and to bring\n anything into use he need only give it reputation.\"\n\nLeaving Paris on the 22nd of April, 1679, Locke arrived, after his long\nabsence, in London on the 30th of the same month. In the political\nworld much had happened whilst he had been away. Shaftesbury, already\nin disgrace when he left England, had been imprisoned in the Tower\nfor a year; but, by a sudden turn of fortune, was now reinstated in\noffice as President of the newly-created Council. Of the circumstances\nwhich had brought about this change, the story of the Popish Plot,\nthe discovery of the king's nefarious negotiations with Louis XIV.,\nand the impeachment of Danby, it is not necessary here to speak. That\nShaftesbury, when he saw the prospect of restoration to power, should\nwish to avail himself, as before, of Locke's advice and services, was\nonly to be expected, and it was the expression of this desire which\nhad hastened Locke's return to England. What, however, were the exact\nrelations between the new Lord President and his former secretary\nduring Shaftesbury's second tenure of office we are not informed. That\nthe intercourse between them was close and frequent, there can be no\ndoubt, and, during the summer months of 1679, Locke again resided in\nhis patron's house. But the king soon felt himself strong enough to\nreassert his own will. Under date of the 15th of October, we read in\nthe Privy Council Book, \"The Earl of Shaftesbury's name was struck\nout of this list by his Majesty's command in Council.\" Consequently,\nShaftesbury was again in opposition, and Locke, though still his\nadviser and friend, and frequently an inmate of one or other of his\nhouses, was released from the pressure of official business. One of\nhis principal cares at this time was the supervision of the education\nof Shaftesbury's grandson. The father, Locke's former pupil, \"born a\nshapeless lump, like anarchy,\" seems to have been but a poor creature,\nand the little Anthony, when only three years old, was made over to\nthe formal guardianship of his grandfather. Locke, though not his\ninstructor, seems to have kept a vigilant eye on the boy's studies\nand discipline, as well as on his health and bodily training. If we\nmay trust the memory of the third earl, writing when in middle life,\nLocke's care was extended to his brothers and sisters as well as to\nhimself. \"In our education,\" he says, \"Mr. Locke governed according\nto his own principles, since published by him\" [in the _Thoughts on\nEducation_], \"and with such success that we all of us came to full\nyears with strong and healthy constitutions--my own the worst, though\nnever faulty till of late. I was his more peculiar charge, being, as\neldest son, taken by my grandfather and bred under his immediate care,\nMr. Locke having the absolute direction of my education, and to whom,\nnext my immediate parents, as I must own the greatest obligation, so\nI have ever preserved the highest gratitude and duty.\" The admiration\nand gratitude which the author of the _Characteristics_ felt for his\ntutor did not, however, prevent him from criticising freely Locke's\n_Theory of Ethics_, and pronouncing it \"a very poor philosophy.\" Of\nthe _Essay_, as a whole, notwithstanding his vigorous protest on this\nparticular point, Shaftesbury seems to have had as high an opinion as\nof its author. \"It may as well qualify for business and the world as\nfor the sciences and a university. No one has done more towards the\nrecalling of philosophy from barbarity into use and practice of the\nworld, and into the company of the better and politer sort, who might\nwell be ashamed of it in its other dress. No one has opened a better\nor clearer way to reasoning.\" (See the Letters of the third Earl of\nShaftesbury to a Student at the University, Letters I., VIII.)\n\nOf the parliament which met at Oxford on the 21st of March, 1680-81,\nLocke was a close, and must have been an anxious, observer. He himself\noccupied his rooms at Christ Church, and for Shaftesbury's use he\nobtained the house of the celebrated mathematician, Dr. Wallis. The\nfullest account we have of the earlier proceedings of this parliament\nare contained in a letter from Locke to Stringer, Shaftesbury's\nsecretary. It was prematurely dissolved on the 28th of March, Charles\nhaving succeeded in obtaining supplies from the French king instead of\nfrom his own subjects, and no other parliament was summoned during the\nremainder of the reign.\n\nSo suspicious of treachery had the rival parties in the State now\nbecome, that most of the members of the Oxford parliament had been\nattended by armed servants, while the king was protected by a body of\nguards. The political tension was, of course, by no means relaxed,\nwhen it became plain that the king intended to govern without a\nparliament, and we can hardly feel surprised that ministers took the\ninitiative in trying to silence their opponents. On the 2nd of July,\n1681, Shaftesbury was arrested in his London house on a charge of\nhigh treason, and, after a brief examination before the Council, was\ncommitted to the tower. Notwithstanding many attempts, he failed to\nobtain a trial till Nov. 24, when he was indicted before a special\ncommission at the Old Bailey. The grand jury, amidst the plaudits\nof the spectators, threw out the bill, and on the 1st of December\nfollowing he was released on bail. Shaftesbury's acquittal was\nreceived in London, and throughout the country, with acclamations of\njoy, but his triumph was only a brief one. The rest of his story is\nsoon told. In the summer of 1682, Shaftesbury, Monmouth, Russell, and a\nfew others began to concert measures for a general rising against the\nking. The scheme was, of course, discovered, and Shaftesbury, knowing\nthat, from the new composition of the juries, he would have no chance\nof escape if another indictment were preferred against him, took to\nflight, and concealed himself for some weeks in obscure houses in the\ncity and in Wapping. Meanwhile he tried, from his hiding-places, to\nfoment an insurrection, but, when he found that the day which had been\nfixed on for the general rising had been postponed, he determined to\nseek safety for himself by escaping to Holland. After some adventures\non the way, he reached Amsterdam in the beginning of December. To\npreserve him from extradition, he was on his petition admitted a\ncitizen of Amsterdam, and might thus, like Locke, have lived to see\nthe Revolution, but on the 21st of January, 1682-83, he died, in\nexcruciating agonies, of gout in the stomach.\n\nThere is no evidence to implicate Locke in Shaftesbury's design of\nsetting the Duke of Monmouth on the throne, though it is difficult to\nsuppose that he was not acquainted with it. Any way, in the spring of\n1681-82, he seems to have been engaged in some mysterious political\nmovements, the nature of which is unknown to us. Humphrey Prideaux,\nafterwards Dean of Norwich, in his gossiping letters to John Ellis,\nafterwards an Under-Secretary of State, frequently mentions Locke, who\nwas at this time residing in Oxford. These notices were probably in\nanswer to queries from Ellis, who was already in the employment of the\ngovernment. From Prideaux's letters (recently published by the Camden\nSociety) I extract a few passages, interesting not only as throwing\nlight on Locke's mode of life at this period in Oxford, but also as\nshowing the estimate of him formed by a political enemy who was a\nmember of the same college:--\n\n \"_March 14, 1681_ (O.S.).--John Locke lives a very cunning and\n unintelligible life here, being two days in town and three out; and\n no one knows where he goes, or when he goes, or when he returns.\n Certainly there is some Whig intrigue a managing; but here not a\n word of politics comes from him, nothing of news or anything else\n concerning our present affairs, as if he were not at all concerned in\n them.\n\n \"_March 19, 1681_ (O.S.).--Where J. L. goes I cannot by any means\n learn, all his voyages being so cunningly contrived. He hath in his\n last sally been absent at least ten days, where I cannot learn. Last\n night he returned; and sometimes he himself goes out and leaves his\n man behind, who shall then to be often seen in the quadrangle, to\n make people believe his master is at home, for he will let no one\n come to his chamber, and therefore it is not certain when he is there\n or when he is absent. I fancy there are projects afoot.\n\n \"_October 24, 1682._--John Locke lives very quietly with us, and\n not a word ever drops from his mouth that discovers anything of his\n heart within. Now his master is fled, I suppose we shall have him\n altogether. He seems to be a man of very good converse, and that\n we have of him with content; as for what else he is he keeps it to\n himself, and therefore troubles not us with it nor we him.\"\n\nAfter Shaftesbury's dismissal from the Presidentship of the Council,\nLocke must have had a considerable amount of leisure. The state of\nhis health, however, and the consequent necessity of his frequently\nchanging his residence, must have interfered a good deal with the\nprogress of his studies. It is plain from his correspondence that he\nstill took a lively interest in scientific and medical pursuits, nor\ndoes he appear to have yet given up the hope of practising medicine in\na regular way. By his friends he was usually called Dr. Locke, and at\nthe period of life we are now considering he still continued to attend\ncases, and to make elaborate notes of treatment and diagnosis.\n\nIt is probable that about this time Locke wrote the first of the _Two\nTreatises on Government_, which were published in 1690. Materials\nfor the Essay were, undoubtedly, being slowly accumulated, and on a\nvariety of questions, political, educational, ethical, theological,\nand philosophical, his views were being gradually matured. Several\npamphlets of a political character were, during these years, attributed\nto him, but we have his own solemn asseveration, in a letter written to\nthe Earl of Pembroke in November, 1684, that he was not the author \"of\nany pamphlet or treatise whatever, in part good, bad, or indifferent;\"\nthat is, of course, of any published pamphlet or treatise, for he had\nalready written a good deal in the way of essays, reflections, and\ncommonplaces.\n\nAfter Shaftesbury's flight, Locke must have found his position\nbecoming more and more unpleasant. During the year 1682 he had resided\npretty constantly in Oxford, but we can well understand that Oxford\nwas not then a very eligible place of residence for a whig and a\nlatitudinarian. He appears to have left it for good at the end of\nJune or beginning of July, 1683, and to have retired for a while\ninto Somersetshire. Shortly afterwards, however, he quitted England\naltogether, and when we next hear of him it is in Holland. That he was\nimplicated in the Rye House plot is, on every ground, most improbable,\nnotwithstanding the malicious insinuations of Prideaux to the contrary.\nNor is there any evidence that he had any concern with the more\nrespectable conspiracy of Monmouth, Russell, and Sidney. But in those\ntimes of plots and counter-plots, and arbitrary interference with the\ncourts of justice, any man who was in opposition to the government\nmight well be in fear for his life or liberty. Specially would this be\nthe case with Locke, who was well known as a friend and adherent of\nShaftesbury. Moreover, had he been thrown into prison, the state of his\nhealth was such that his life would probably have been endangered. His\nflight, therefore, affords no countenance whatsoever to the supposition\nthat he had been engaged in treasonable designs against the government.\nIt would, I conceive, be no stain on Locke's character, had he, in\nthose days of misgovernment and oppression, conspired to effect by\nviolent means a change in the succession, or even a transference of the\ncrown. But the fact that there is no evidence of his having done so\nremoves almost all excuse for the tyrannical act which I am presently\nabout to describe. In connexion with Locke's flight to Holland, it\nmay be mentioned that the idea of leaving England was by no means new\nto him. The proposal to emigrate together to Carolina or the \u00cele de\nBourbon, possibly, however, thrown out half in jest, is a frequent\ntopic in the correspondence with his French friend, Thoynard, during\nthe two or three years succeeding his return from France. That he\nwas becoming disgusted with the political game then being played in\nEngland, and despondent as to the future of his country, is evident\nfrom several letters written by him at this time.\n\nThe account of Locke's life in Holland may be deferred to the next\nchapter. It will be convenient here to tell the story of his expulsion\nfrom Christ Church, which marks the issue of his connexion with\nShaftesbury, and of the part which he had so far taken in English\npolitics. We have already seen that he was suspected of having written\na number of political pamphlets against the government. This suspicion\nwas not unnatural, Locke being a literary man and a well-known friend\nof Shaftesbury. After his retirement to Holland, the suspicion of his\nhaving written various pamphlets, supposed to have been printed in that\ncountry, and surreptitiously conveyed into England, was one which very\nnaturally occurred, and, according to Prideaux, he was now specially\nsuspected of having written \"a most bitter libel, published in Holland\nin English, Dutch, and French, called a Hue and Cry after the Earl of\nEssex's murder.\" But the government had no proof of these surmises,\nand therefore no right to take action upon them. Their suspicions\nwere, however, probably sharpened by the malicious reports of their\nspies in Oxford, and by the not unlikely supposition that Locke was\ntaking part in the intrigues, on behalf of Monmouth, now being carried\non in Holland. For the latter suspicion, as for the one with regard\nto the authorship of the pamphlets, it happens that there was no\njustification, but it is impossible to deny that there was some _prim\u00e2\nfacie_ ground for it. Compared with other arbitrary acts of the reigns\nof Charles II. and James II., the measures taken against Locke do not\nseem exceptionally severe, utterly abhorrent as they would doubtless be\nto the usages of a constitutional age.\n\nAbout fourteen or fifteen months had elapsed since his disappearance\nfrom England, when, on the 6th of November, 1684, Lord Sunderland\nsignified to Dr. Fell, Dean of Christ Church, who was also Bishop of\nOxford, the pleasure of the king that Locke should be removed from\nhis studentship, asking the Dean at the same time to specify \"the\nmethod of doing it.\" \"The method\" adopted by the Dean was to attach a\n\"moneo\" to the screen in the college hall, summoning Locke to appear\non the 1st of January following, to answer the charges against him.\nAfter admitting that Locke, as having a physician's place among the\nstudents, was not obliged to residence, and that he was abroad upon\nwant of health, the Dean, in his reply to Sunderland, proceeds to show\nhis readiness to accommodate himself to the requirements of the court:\n\"Notwithstanding that, I have summoned him to return home, which is\ndone with this prospect, that if he comes not back, he will be liable\nto expulsion for contumacy; if he does, he will be answerable to your\nlordship for what he shall be found to have done amiss.\" Ingenious,\nhowever, as the \"method\" was, it was not expeditious enough to satisfy\nthe court. A second letter from Sunderland, enjoining Locke's immediate\nexpulsion, was at once despatched. This curious document is still\nshown in the Christ Church library, and, as I have never seen an exact\ntranscript of it, I here subjoin one:\n\n \"_To the Right Reverend Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Oxon,\n Dean of Christ Church, and our trusty and well-beloved the Chapter\n there._\n\n \"Right Reverend Father in God, and trusty and well-beloved, we greet\n you well. Whereas we have received information of the factious\n and disloyall behaviour of Lock, one of the students of that our\n Colledge; we have thought fit hereby to signify our will and pleasure\n to you, that you forthwith remove him from his said student's place,\n and deprive him of all the rights and advantages thereunto belonging.\n For which this shall be your warrant. And so we bid you heartily\n farewell.\n\n \"Given at our Court at Whitehall, 11th day of November, 1684, in the\n six and thirtieth year of our Reigne.\n\n \"By his Majesty's command,\n\n SUNDERLAND.\"\n\nOn the 16th of November the Dean signified that his Majesty's command\nwas fully executed, whereupon Lord Sunderland acquainted him that his\nMajesty was well satisfied with the college's ready obedience.\n\nThus the most celebrated man, perhaps, that Oxford has sheltered within\nher walls since the Reformation was summarily ejected at the dictation\nof a corrupt and arbitrary court. The Dean and Chapter might have won\nour admiration had they resisted the royal command, as was done in\nthe next reign by the Fellows of Magdalen College, but it was hardly\nto be expected that they should risk their own goods and liberties\nin attempting to afford a protection which, after all, would have\nbeen almost certainly attempted in vain. Moreover, as Lord Grenville\n(_Oxford and Locke_) has pointed out, Christ Church being a royal\nfoundation, the Dean and Chapter might well regard the king as having\nfull power either to appoint or remove any member of the foundation,\nand themselves as only registering his decree. The same power, as\nwe have already seen, had been exercised in Locke's favour by the\ndispensation from entering holy orders accorded by the crown in 1666.\n\nAfter the Revolution, Locke petitioned William the Third for the\nrestitution of his studentship, but \"finding,\" according to Lady\nMasham, that \"it would give great disturbance to the society, and\ndispossess the person that was in his place, he desisted from that\npretension.\"\n\nIn Fell's first letter to Sunderland, he speaks of Locke's extreme\nreserve and taciturnity. As this seems to have been one of his\ndistinguishing characteristics, and as the passage is otherwise\nremarkable, as showing the vigilance with which Locke was watched at\nOxford, I give it at length:\n\n \"I have for divers years had an eye upon him; but so close has\n his guard been on himself that, after several strict inquiries,\n I may confidently affirm there is not any one in the College,\n however familiar with him, who has heard him speak a word either\n against or so much as concerning the Government; and although very\n frequently, both in public and in private, discourses have been\n purposely introduced to the disparagement of his master, the Earl of\n Shaftesbury, his party and designs, he could never be provoked to\n take any notice or discover in word or look the least concern; so\n that I believe there is not in the world such a master of taciturnity\n and passion.\"\n\nThis account of Locke's reserve, as well as the illustration here\nincidentally afforded of the abominable system of college espionage\nwhich then prevailed in Oxford, is amply confirmed by Prideaux's\nletters to Ellis. In the _Thoughts on Education_ parents and tutors\nare recommended to mould children betimes to this mastery over their\ntongues. But the gift of silence was exercised by Locke only in\nthose matters where other men have no right to be inquisitive or\ncurious--matters of private concernment and of individual opinion.\nIn conversation on general topics, he seems always to have been open\nand copious. His taciturnity, though the effect of prudence and\nself-control, was certainly not due to any lack of geniality or any\nwant of sympathy with others.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nRESIDENCE IN HOLLAND.--THE REVOLUTION.--RETURN TO ENGLAND.--PUBLICATION\nOF THE \"ESSAY\" AND OTHER WORKS.\n\n\nLocke must have landed in Holland in one of the autumn months of 1683,\nbeing then about fifty-one years of age. We are not able, however, to\ntrace any of his movements till the January of 1683-84, when he was\npresent, by invitation of Peter Guenellon, the principal physician of\nAmsterdam, at the dissection of a lioness which had been killed by the\nintense cold of the winter.\n\nThrough Guenellon, whom he had met during his stay in Paris, he must\nhave made the acquaintance of the principal literary and scientific\nmen at that time residing in or near Amsterdam. Amongst these was\nPhilip van Limborch, then professor of theology among the Arminians\nor Remonstrants. The Arminians (called Remonstrants on account of\nthe remonstrance which they had presented to the States-General in\n1610) were the latitudinarians of Holland, and, though they had been\ncondemned by the Synod of Dort in 1619, and had been subjected to a\nbitter persecution by the Calvinist clergy for some years following,\nwere now a fairly numerous body, possessing a theological seminary, and\nexercising a considerable influence, not only in their own country,\nbut over the minds of the more liberal theologians throughout Europe.\nThe undogmatic, tolerant, and, if I may use the expression, ethical\ncharacter of the Remonstrant theology must have had great attractions\nfor Locke, and he and Limborch, united by many common sentiments,\nsubsequently became fast friends.\n\nIn the autumn of 1684 Locke made a tour of the country, noting, as was\nusual with him, all objects and matters of interest, and evidently\nbenefiting much in health by the diversion of travelling. Indeed,\nwe are somewhat surprised to hear that his health derived more\nadvantage from the air of Holland than from that of Montpellier. What,\nhowever, he put down to climate was, perhaps, at least equally due to\npleasant companionship, and to the variety of interests--political,\ncommercial, literary, and theological--which the Dutch nation at that\ntime so pre-eminently afforded. Amongst the objects which attracted\nhis attention was a sect of communistic mystics established near\nLeeuwarden. \"They receive,\" he says, \"all ages, sexes, and degrees,\nupon approbation. They live all in common; and whoever is admitted\nis to give with himself all he has to Christ the Lord--that is, the\nChurch--to be managed by officers appointed by the Church. These\npeople, however, were very shy to give an account of themselves to\nstrangers, and they appeared inclined to dispense their instruction\nonly to those whom 'the Lord,' as they say, 'had disposed to it,' and\nin whom they saw 'signs of grace;' which 'signs of grace' seem to me\nto be, at last, a perfect submission to the will and rules of their\npastor, Mr. Yonn, who, if I mistake not, has established to himself\na perfect empire over them. For though their censures and all their\nadministrations be in appearance in their Church, yet it is easy to\nperceive how at last it determines in him. He is _dominus factotum_;\nand though I believe they are, generally speaking, people of very\ngood and exemplary lives, yet the tone of voice, manner, and fashion\nof those I conversed with seemed to make one suspect a little of\nTartuffe.\" After Locke's experiences of the Puritan ministers in his\nearly life, the character of Mr. Yonn was, probably, by no means new\nto him, though he now repeated his acquaintance with it under novel\ncircumstances.\n\nIn November Locke was again in Amsterdam, and here he heard of Dr.\nFell's \"moneo,\" summoning him back to Christ Church. At first it would\nseem that he resolved to comply with it, but the intelligence of the\n\"moneo\" must soon have been followed by that of his deprivation, and\nthus he was saved from the dangers which might have befallen him had\nhe returned to England. In more ways than one, his continued absence\nabroad was probably an advantage to him. \"In Holland,\" says Lady\nMasham, \"he had full leisure to prosecute his thoughts on the subject\nof _Human Understanding_--a work which, in probability, he never would\nhave finished had he continued in England.\" The winter of this year\nwas spent in Utrecht and devoted to study--probably to the preparation\nof the _Essay on Human Understanding_. But this quiet mode of life was\nquickly coming to an end. On the 6th of February, 1684-85, Charles\nthe Second had died; and, though the succession of the Duke of York\nwas at first undisputed, Monmouth, the natural son of the late king,\nwas soon persuaded by his impatient and injudicious followers to head\nthe insurrection which resulted in his defeat and execution. From\nMonmouth's intrigues Locke had always held aloof, \"having no such\nhigh opinion of the Duke of Monmouth as to expect anything from his\nundertaking.\" But prudence, in those days of fierce political hatred\nand unblushing fabrications, was often of very little avail. Locke was\nwell known as an adherent of Shaftesbury, and Shaftesbury had long and\nardently favoured Monmouth's pretensions. Moreover, stories tending\nto discredit him with the advisers of the Court, and to connect his\nname with the plots of the other exiles, were probably circulating\npretty freely at this time. On the 7th of May--a few days after Argyle\nhad set out on his ill-starred expedition to Scotland, and while\nMonmouth was still preparing for his descent on the west coast of\nEngland--Colonel Skelton, who had been sent over as a special envoy to\nthe Hague, presented to the States-General a list of persons regarded\nas dangerous by the English Government, and demanded their surrender.\nOn this list Locke's name stood last, having been added, we are told,\nby Sir George Downing, the English representative at the Dutch Court,\nbut whether or not in pursuance of further instructions from home we\ndo not know. Locke was at this time living at Utrecht, and it was at\nonce arranged that he should be concealed in the house of Dr. Veen, of\nAmsterdam, the father-in-law of his old acquaintance, Dr. Guenellon.\nThough it was necessary, for appearance' sake, that he should keep\nstrictly to his hiding-place, he does not seem to have incurred any\nreal danger. The municipal authorities of Amsterdam had too great a\nhorror of Popery and too much sympathy with liberty to show any marked\nzeal in carrying out the wishes of the English king; nor does the\nPrince of Orange himself appear to have been very eager to hunt out the\nfugitives, provided they went through the decent ceremony of concealing\nthemselves from the ministers of justice. To Locke the confinement was\ndoubtless irksome; but he was solaced by the visits of his friends,\nespecially of Limborch, and the monotony of his solitude was broken by\na visit of a few weeks to Cleve. Here, however, he does not appear to\nhave felt so safe as at Amsterdam; and, consequently, he soon returned\nto his old quarters, assuming the name of Dr. Van der Linden, as at\nCleve he had assumed that of Lamy. Meanwhile, two of his friends in\nEngland--William Penn, the celebrated Quaker, and the Earl of Pembroke,\nto whom he afterwards dedicated the _Essay_--were moving the king for\na pardon. The latter, writing to Locke on the 20th of August, informs\nhim that the king \"bid me write to you to come over; I told him I would\nthen bring you to kiss his hand, and he was fully satisfied I should.\"\nLocke, however, appears to have had little confidence in the king's\nsincerity, and, perhaps, no desire to compromise any political action\nthat might be open to him in the future by making formal submission to\na monarch who was tolerably certain to work out his own ruin. He still\nremained in concealment, and replied that, \"having been guilty of no\ncrime, he had no occasion for a pardon.\" But in May, 1686, all fear\nof arrest was removed by the appearance of a new proclamation of the\nStates-General, in which his name was not included, and henceforth he\nwas enabled to move about with perfect freedom.\n\nThe name of Limborch, one of the friends whom Locke made in Holland,\nhas already been mentioned. A long series of letters which passed\nbetween them, beginning with Locke's arrival at Cleve in September,\n1685, and ending only a few weeks before his death, is still extant,\nthough some are still unpublished. This correspondence is interesting,\nnot only as throwing light on Locke's pursuits, but also as affording\na free expression of his theological opinions. Thus, in a letter\nwritten to Limborch soon after his arrival at Cleve, with reference to\na work recently published by Le Clerc, he acknowledges his perplexities\nrespecting the plenary inspiration of the Bible. \"If all things which\nare contained in the sacred books are equally to be regarded as\ninspired, without any distinctions, then we give philosophers a great\nhandle for doubting of our faith and sincerity. If, on the contrary,\nsome things are to be regarded as purely human, how shall we establish\nthe divine authority of the Scriptures, without which the Christian\nreligion will fall to the ground? What shall be our criterion? Where\nshall we draw the line?\" He applies to Limborch for help. \"For many\nthings which occur in the canonical books, long before I read this\ntreatise, have made me anxious and doubtful, and I shall be most\ngrateful if you could remove my scruples.\" From the character of his\ntheological writings, composed during the latter years of his life, it\nwould appear that these scruples were afterwards either removed or set\naside.\n\nWith Le Clerc (Joannes Clericus) himself Locke first became personally\nacquainted after his return to Amsterdam in the winter of 1685-86. Le\nClerc was still young, having been born at Geneva in 1657, but he had\nalready acquired considerable reputation both as a philosopher and as a\ntheologian. As a philosopher, he had at first embraced the doctrines of\nDescartes, but, in after-life, he leaned rather to those views which,\na few years after the time of which I am writing, became famous by the\npublication of Locke's _Essay_. As a divine, his theology was liberal\nand critical beyond even that of the Remonstrant School. He questioned\nthe Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, regarded some of the books of\nthe old Testament as of purely human origin, and, in his treatment\nof the miracles and of Christian doctrine, rationalized so far as to\nexpose himself to the charge of Socinianism, though he himself warmly\nrepudiated the imputation. In literary activity and enterprise he\nyielded to no other author of the age. Such a man, full of energy and\nof novel views, ready to entertain and discuss any question of interest\nin theology, criticism, or philosophy, must have been peculiarly\nacceptable to an exile like Locke, whose mind was now engaged with just\nthe same problems that were occupying Le Clerc. The intimacy between\nthe two students, though never so affectionate as that between Locke\nand Limborch, soon became a close one. Though widely separated in age,\nand though differing, probably, in many of their specific opinions,\nthey were conscious that they were travelling the same road--a way then\nlittle frequented--the way which led from the received tenets of the\nchurches and the schools to the arena of free inquiry and impartial\ninvestigation.\n\nIn the winter of 1685-86, Locke, while still hiding in Dr. Veen's\nhouse, employed himself in writing the famous _Epistola de Tolerantia_,\naddressed to Limborch. This tract was not, however, published till\n1689, when it was almost immediately translated into English, Dutch,\nand French. Of the opinions expressed in this and the other letters on\nToleration I shall have occasion to speak hereafter, when describing\nLocke's theological views. It must be recollected that, though now\nin his fifty-fourth year, he had as yet published nothing of any\nimportance. He had, indeed, for several years been slowly putting\ntogether the materials for many books; but it is possible that his\nnatural modesty, together with what seems to have been an excessive\nprudence, might have prevented him from giving any of his thoughts\nto the world, at least during his lifetime, had it not been for the\nfortunate circumstances which brought him into contact with Le Clerc.\nAt the time when the two friends were introduced to one another,\nLe Clerc was projecting the _Biblioth\u00e8que Universelle_, one of the\nearliest literary and scientific reviews, and to this Locke soon became\na constant contributor. In the July number of 1686 appears his method\nof a Commonplace Book, under the title, _M\u00e9thode Nouvelle de dresser\ndes Recueils_. The ice was now broken, and from this time onwards we\nshall find his publications follow one another in rapid succession.\n\nIn September, 1686, Locke moved again to Utrecht, intending,\napparently, to make a prolonged residence there; but in December,\nfor some mysterious reason with which we are not acquainted, though\nconnected in all probability with English politics, he was threatened\nwith expulsion from the city, and was obliged to return to Amsterdam.\nIt seems, from his correspondence with Limborch, that he did not wish\nthis expulsion to be talked about. At the same time, he accepted\nstoically the inconveniences to which it put him. \"These are the sports\nof fortune, or rather the ordinary chances of human life, which come\nas naturally as wind and rain to travellers.\" At Amsterdam he remained\nfor two months as the guest of his old friend, Dr. Guenellon, and then\nremoved to Rotterdam, where, with occasional breaks, he resided during\nthe rest of his stay in Holland. This removal was undoubtedly connected\nwith the turn which English politics were now taking at the Dutch\nCourt. Monmouth being now out of the way, the only quarter to which\nthose who were weary of the Stuart despotism could look for redress\nwas the House of Orange. Secret negotiations were at this time going\non with the Prince and Princess, and there can be no doubt that Locke\nwas taking an active share in the schemes that were in preparation.\nRotterdam was within a short distance of the Hague, and also a\nconvenient place for carrying on a correspondence with England as well\nas for meeting the Englishmen who landed in Holland. As soon as Locke\narrived at Rotterdam his hands seem to have been tolerably full of\npolitical business. Writing to Limborch in February, 1686-87, he says,\n\"To politics I gave but little thought at Amsterdam; here I cannot pay\nmuch attention to literature.\" Mr. Fox Bourne conjectures that it was\nthrough Lord Mordaunt, afterwards Earl of Peterborough, who shortly\nbefore this time had taken up his residence in Holland, that Locke was\nbrought into personal relations with the Prince and Princess. Any way,\nthese relations gradually ripened into friendship, and a mutual feeling\nof respect and admiration seems soon to have grown up between him and\nthe royal couple.\n\nWhile at Rotterdam, Locke resided with Benjamin Furly, an English\nQuaker, who was a merchant of considerable wealth and a great\nbook-collector. At Furly's death, in 1714, the sale-catalogue of his\nbooks occupied nearly 400 pages. Locke was thus at no loss for the\ninstruments of his trade, and, notwithstanding his preoccupation\nin politics, he seems to have been working with fair assiduity at\nthe _Essay_ and on other literary subjects. In the number of the\n_Biblioth\u00e8que Universelle_ for January, 1687-88, appeared an abstract\nof the _Essay_, translated into French by Le Clerc, from a manuscript\nwritten by Locke, which is still extant. The epitome was announced\nas communicated by Monsieur Locke, and a note was appended inviting\ncriticisms, if anything false, obscure, or defective were remarked in\nthe system. After the review had appeared, separate copies of the\nepitome were struck off, and the opuscule, with a short dedication to\nthe Earl of Pembroke, was published in a separate form. Locke went\nto Amsterdam for the purpose of superintending the printing of the\nepitome, and appears to have been sorely tried by the \"drunken\" and\n\"lying\" workmen, who, however, were all \"good Christians,\" \"orthodox\nbelievers,\" and \"marked for salvation by the distinguishing L that\nstands on their door-posts, or the funeral sermon that they may have\nfor a passport if they will go to the charge of it.\" On the 29th of\nFebruary he returned to Furly's house, where he seems to have lived\nin great comfort, and on most intimate and affectionate terms with\nthe family. One of the sons, a little boy of four or five years old,\nnamed Arent, was a special favourite, and is playfully alluded to in\nthe letters to Furly as \"my little friend!\" Kindness to children seems\nalways to have been one of Locke's characteristics, as it is of all men\nof simple manners and warm hearts.\n\nIt was on the 1st of November, 1688, that William of Orange set out on\nhis expedition to England. Locke still remained in Holland, and appears\nto have had frequent interviews with the Princess Mary, who was waiting\ntill she could with safety join her husband. At last the word was given\nfrom England, and, after being detained for some time by unfavourable\nweather, the royal party, accompanied by Locke and Lady Mordaunt, left\nthe Hague on the 11th of February, 1688-89. They arrived at Greenwich\non the following day. It was with mixed feelings that Locke took leave\nof the country where he had been entertained so long, and where he had\nformed so many warm and congenial friendships. Writing to Limborch\nshortly before his departure, he says, \"There are many considerations\nwhich urge me not to miss this opportunity of sailing: the expectation\nof my friends; my private affairs, which have now been long neglected;\nthe number of pirates in the channel; and the charge of the noble lady\n(Lady Mordaunt) with whom I am about to travel. But I trust that you\nwill believe me when I say that I have found here another country,\nand I might almost say other relations; for all that is dearest in\nthat expression--good-will, love, kindness--bonds that are stronger\nthan blood--I have experienced amongst you. It is owing to this\nfellow-feeling, which has always been shown to me by your countrymen,\nthat, though absent from my own people and exposed to every kind of\ntrouble, I have never yet felt sick at heart.\"[1] Still, it must have\nbeen with a thrill of delight that, after an absence of more than five\nyears, he once more stepped on the shores of his native land, and felt\nthat a new era of liberty and glory had dawned for her.\n\n [1] It should be mentioned, perhaps, that the correspondence\n between Locke and Limborch is in Latin.\n\nAbout a week after his arrival in England, Locke was offered, through\nLord Mordaunt, the post of ambassador to Frederick the First, Elector\nof Brandenburg. The letter to Lord Mordaunt, in which he declines the\npost, shows the feeble condition in which, notwithstanding all his\nprecautions, his health still continued. \"It is the most touching\ndispleasure I have ever received from that weak and broken constitution\nof my health, which has so long threatened my life, that it now\naffords me not a body suitable to my mind in so desirable an occasion\nof serving his Majesty.... What shall a man do in the necessity of\napplication and variety of attendance on business who sometimes, after\na little motion, has not breath to speak, and cannot borrow an hour\nor two of watching from the night without repaying it with a great\nwaste of time the next day?\" But there was another reason, besides his\nhealth, why he could not accept a mission to the Court of Brandenburg.\n\"If I have reason to apprehend the cold air of the country, there is\nyet another thing in it as inconsistent with my constitution, and that\nis their warm drinking.\" It was true that he might oppose obstinate\nrefusal, but then that would be to take more care of his own health\nthan of the king's business. \"It is no small matter in such stations\nto be acceptable to the people one has to do with, in being able to\naccommodate one's self to their fashions; and I imagine, whatever I\nmay do there myself, the knowing what others are doing is at least one\nhalf of my business, and I know no such rack in the world to draw out\nmen's thoughts as a well-managed bottle. If, therefore, it were fit\nfor me to advise in this case, I should think it more for the king's\ninterest to send a man of equal parts that could drink his share\nthan the soberest man in the kingdom.\" But, though Locke shrank from\nthis post, the importance of which could hardly be exaggerated, for\nFrederick was the ally on whom William most confided in his opposition\nto Louis the Fourteenth, he was ready to place his services at the\ndisposal of the Government for domestic work. \"If there be anything\nwherein I may flatter myself I have attained any degree of capacity to\nserve his Majesty, it is in some little knowledge I perhaps may have\nin the constitutions of my country, the temper of my countrymen, and\nthe divisions amongst them, whereby I persuade myself I may be more\nuseful to him at home, though I cannot but see that such an employment\nwould be of greater advantage to myself abroad, would but my health\nassent to it.\" The disinterested patriotism of this letter was only of\na piece with the whole of Locke's political life. He was next offered\nthe embassy to Vienna, and, in fact, invited to name any diplomatic\nappointment which he would be prepared to accept; but he regarded his\nhealth as an insuperable bar to work of this kind at so critical a\ntime in the history of Europe. Having declined all foreign employment,\nhe was now named a Commissioner of Appeals, an office with small\nemolument and not much work, which he appears to have retained during\nthe remainder of his life. This office seems to have been given to him\npartly as a compensation for the arrears of salary due under the late\nGovernment; for, with an exhausted exchequer, it was impossible to\nsatisfy such claims by immediate payment.\n\nLocke's health suffered considerably by his return to London. Writing\nto Limborch shortly after his arrival, and complaining of the worry\ncaused him by the pressure of private affairs and public business, the\nclimax of all his grievances, we are hardly surprised to find, is the\ninjury to his health \"from the pestilent smoke of this city\" (_Malignus\nhujus urbis fumus_). Amongst the public affairs which claimed his\nattention, the foremost, doubtless, was the attempt then being made to\nwiden the basis of the National Church by a measure of comprehension,\nas well as to relieve of civil disabilities the more extreme or\nscrupulous of the sectaries by what was called a measure of indulgence\nor toleration. Locke, of course, with his friend Lord Mordaunt, took\nthe most liberal side open to him as respects these measures; but he\ncomplains that the episcopal clergy were unfavourable to these as well\nas to other reforms, whether to their own advantage and that of the\nState it was for them to consider. Unfortunately both for the Church\nand nation, the issue of the religious struggles which were carried\non at the beginning of William's reign was, on the whole, in favor of\nthe less tolerant party. The Comprehension Bill, after being violently\nattacked and languidly defended, was dropped altogether. The Toleration\nBill, though passed by pretty general consent, and affording a\nconsiderable measure of relief on the existing law, was entirely of the\nnature of a compromise, and what we should now note as most remarkable\nin it is the number of its provisos and exceptions. No relief was\ngranted to the believer in transubstantiation or the disbeliever in\nthe Trinity. No dissenting minister, moreover, was allowed to exercise\nhis vocation unless he subscribed thirty-four out of the Thirty-nine\nArticles, together with the greater part of two others. The Quakers\nhad to make a special declaration of belief in the Holy Trinity and in\nthe Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The measure of toleration\nwhich Locke would have been prepared to grant, it need hardly be\nsaid, far exceeded that which was accorded by the Act. Speaking of\nthe law recently passed in a letter to Limborch on the 6th of June,\nhe uses apologetic language. \"Toleration has indeed been granted, but\nnot with that latitude which you and men like you, true Christians\nwithout ambition or envy, would desire. But it is something to have\ngot thus far. On these beginnings I hope are laid the foundations of\nliberty and peace on which the Church of Christ will hereafter be\nestablished.\" In a subsequent letter, speaking again of the same law,\nhe says, \"People will always differ from one another about religion,\nand carry on constant strife and war, until the right of every one to\nperfect liberty in these matters is conceded, and they can be united in\none body by a bond of mutual charity.\" If there be any truth in the\ntradition to which Lord King alludes, that Locke himself negotiated\nthe terms of the Toleration Act, he must have regarded it simply as\nan instalment of religious liberty, the utmost that could be procured\nunder the circumstances, and an earnest of better things to come.\n\nOn William's accession to the throne, one only of the English Sees was\nvacant, the Bishopric of Salisbury. To this he nominated the famous\nGilbert Burnet, who had been one of his advisers in Holland. Locke,\nin one of his letters to Limborch, tells a rather malicious story of\nthe new prelate. When he paid his first visit to the king after his\nconsecration, his Majesty observed that his hat was a good deal larger\nthan usual, and asked him what was the object of so very much brim. The\nbishop replied that it was the shape suitable to his dignity. \"I hope,\"\nanswered the king, \"that the hat won't turn your head.\"\n\nThe topic that most interested Locke probably at this time, next to the\npolitical regeneration of his country, was the approaching publication\nof the _Essay_. The work must have been finished, or all but finished,\nwhen he left Holland. In May, 1689, he wrote the dedication to the\nEarl of Pembroke, and the printing commenced shortly afterwards.\nThe proof-sheets were sent to Le Clerc. As before at Amsterdam, the\nprinters appear to have caused him some trouble, but the book was in\nthe booksellers' shops early in 1690. It is a fine folio, \"printed by\nEliz. Holt for Thomas Basset at the George in Fleet Street, near St.\nDunstan's Church.\" Locke received 30_l._ for the copyright. But when we\nremember that Milton only lived to receive 10_l._ for _Paradise Lost_,\nwe cannot feel much surprise at Locke's rate of payment. The days when\nauthorship was to become a lucrative profession were still far distant\nin England.\n\nPreviously to the publication of the _Essay_, in the spring of 1689,\nthe _Epistola de Tolerantia_ had appeared at Gouda, in Holland; but it\nwas published anonymously, and apparently without Locke's knowledge,\nthe responsibility of giving it to the world being undertaken by\nLimborch, to whom it had been addressed. On the title-page are some\nmysterious letters, the invention, probably, of Limborch: \"Epistola\nde Tolerantia ad Clarissimum Virum T. A. R. P. T. O. L. A. Scripta\na P. A. P. O. I. L. A.\" These being interpreted are, \"Theologi\u00e6\nApud Remonstrantes Professorem, Tyrannidis Osorem, Limborchium\nAmstelodamensem;\" and \"Pacis Amico, Persecutionis Osore, Joanne Lockio\nAnglo.\" Dutch and French translations were issued almost immediately,\nand the book at once created considerable discussion on the Continent;\nbut it does not at the first appear to have excited much attention in\nEngland. Locke himself was for some time unable to obtain a copy. In\nthe course of the year, however, it was translated into English by\none William Popple, an Unitarian merchant residing in London. In the\npreface the translator, alluding to recent legislation, says, \"We have\nneed of more generous remedies than what have yet been made use of in\nour distemper. It is neither declarations of indulgence nor acts of\ncomprehension, such as have as yet been practised or projected amongst\nus, that can do the work. Absolute liberty, just and true liberty,\nequal and impartial liberty, is the thing that we stand in need of.\"\n\nLocke affords a curious instance of a man who, having carefully\nshunned publication up to a late period of life, then gave forth a\nseries of works in rapid succession. It would seem as if he had long\nmistrusted his own powers, or as if he had doubted of the expediency\nof at once seeking a wide circulation for his views, but that, having\nonce ventured to reveal himself to the public, he was emboldened,\nif not impelled, to proceed. Early in 1690, there appeared not only\nthe _Essay_, but also the _Two Treatises of Government_. These\nwere published anonymously, but it must soon have been known that\nLocke was their author. For reasons which I have given in another\nchapter, the former of the two treatises, which is a criticism of\nSir Robert Filmer's _Patriarcha_, seems to have been written between\n1680 and 1685, the latter during the concluding period of Locke's\nstay in Holland, while the English Revolution was being prepared and\nconsummated.\n\nThe translation of the Epistle on Toleration soon provoked a lively\ncontroversy. To one answer, that by Jonas Proast, Locke replied in a\n_Second Letter concerning Toleration_, signed by Philanthropus, and\ndated May 27, 1690. Proast, as the manner is in such controversies,\nreplied again, and Locke wrote a _Third Letter for Toleration_, again\nsigned Philanthropus, and dated June 20, 1692. After many years'\nsilence, Proast wrote a rejoinder in 1704, and to this Locke replied in\nthe _Fourth Letter for Toleration_, which, however, he did not live to\npublish, or, indeed, to complete. It appeared amongst his Posthumous\nWorks. These Letters on Toleration doubtless exercised great influence\nin their day, and probably contributed, in large measure, to bring\nabout the more enlightened views on this subject which in this country,\nat least, are now all but universal.\n\nThe authorship of the Letters on Toleration, though it could hardly\nfail to be pretty generally known, was first distinctly acknowledged\nby Locke in the codicil to his will. Limborch, on being hard pressed,\nhad divulged it, in the spring of 1690, to Guenellon and Veen, but\nthey appear, contrary to what generally happens in such cases, to have\nkept the secret to themselves. Locke, however, was much irritated at\nthe indiscretion of Limborch, and for once wrote him an angry letter.\n\"If you had entrusted me with a secret of this kind, I would not have\ndivulged it to relation, or friend, or any mortal being, under any\ncircumstances whatsoever. You do not know the trouble into which you\nhave brought me.\" It is not easy to see why Locke should have felt so\ndisquieted at the prospect of his authorship being discovered, but\nit may be that he hoped to bring about some extension of the limits\nof the Toleration Act which had been passed in the preceding year,\nand that he feared that his hands might be tied by the discovery that\nhe entertained what, at that time, would be regarded as such extreme\nviews; or it may have been simply that he was afraid, if his authorship\nwere once acknowledged, of being dragged into a long and irksome\ncontroversy with the bigots of the various ecclesiastical parties which\nwere then endeavouring to maintain or recover their ascendancy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nLIFE AT OATES.--FRIENDSHIPS.--FURTHER PUBLICATIONS.\n\n\nShortly after Locke returned to England, he settled down in lodgings\nin the neighbourhood of what is now called Cannon Row, Westminster.\nBut the fogs and smoke of London then, as now, were not favourable\nto persons of delicate health, and he seems to have been glad of any\nopportunity of breathing the country air. Amongst his places of resort\nwere Parson's Green, the suburban residence of Lord Mordaunt, now Earl\nof Monmouth, and Oates, a manor-house, in the parish of High Laver, in\nEssex, the seat of Sir Francis and Lady Masham, situated in a pleasant\npastoral country, about twenty miles from London. Lady Masham had\nbecome known to him as Damaris Cudworth, before his retreat to Holland,\nand it is plain that from the first she had excited his admiration and\nesteem. She was the daughter of Dr. Ralph Cudworth, Master of Christ's\nCollege, Cambridge, author of _The True Intellectual System of the\nUniverse_, and of a posthumous work, still better known, _A Treatise\nconcerning Eternal and Immutable Morality_. The close connexion\nwhich, in the latter years of his life, subsisted between Locke, the\nforemost name amongst the empirical philosophers of modern times, and\nthe daughter of Cudworth, the most uncompromising of the _a priori_\nmoralists and philosophers of the seventeenth century, may be regarded\nas one of the ironies of literary history. Damaris Cudworth, inheriting\nher father's tastes, took great interest in learning of all kinds, and\nspecially in philosophy and theology. There was one point of community\nbetween her father and Locke besides their common pursuits, namely,\nthe wide and philosophical view which they both took of theological\ncontroversies. Cudworth belonged to the small but learned and refined\ngroup of Cambridge Platonists or Latitudinarians, as they were\ncalled, which also numbered Henry More, John Smith, Culverwell, and\nWhichcote. Liberal and tolerant Churchmanship in those days, when it\nwas so rare, was probably a much closer bond of union than it is now,\nand the associations which she had formed with her father's liberal,\nphilosophical, and devout spirit must have helped to endear Locke to\nthe daughter of Dr. Cudworth. During Locke's absence from England,\nDamaris Cudworth had married, as his second wife, Sir Francis Masham,\nan amiable and hospitable country gentleman, who seems to have occupied\na prominent position in his county. With them lived Mrs. Cudworth, the\nwidow of Dr. Cudworth, one little son, Francis, and a daughter by the\nformer marriage, Esther, who was about fourteen when Locke commenced\nhis visits to the family. From the first he seems to have had some idea\nof settling down at Oates, \"making trial of the air of the place,\" than\nwhich, as Lady Masham tells us, \"he thought none would be more suitable\nto him.\" After a very severe illness in the autumn of 1690, he spent\nseveral months with the Mashams, and appears then to have formed a more\ndefinite plan of making Oates his home. But, though his hospitable\nfriends gave him every assurance of a constant welcome, he would only\nconsent to regard it as a permanent residence on his own terms, which\nwere that he should pay his share of the household expenses. With true\nkindness and courtesy, Sir Francis and Lady Masham, at last, in the\nspring of 1691, agreed to this arrangement, and \"Mr. Locke then,\" says\nLady Masham, \"believed himself at home with us, and resolved, if it\npleased God, here to end his days--as he did.\" Devoted and sympathetic\nfriends, a pleasant residence, freedom from domestic or pecuniary\ncares, and the pure fresh air of the country seem to have afforded him\nall the enjoyment and leisure which we could have wished for him. After\nhaving had more than his share of the storms of life, he had at last\nfound a quiet and pleasant haven wherein to enjoy the calm and sunshine\nof his declining years. Occasionally, and especially during the summer,\nhe visited London, where, at first, he retained his old chambers at\nWestminster, moving afterwards to Lincoln's Inn Fields. But Oates was\nnow his home, and it continued to be so to the end of his life.\n\nLocke was always an attached friend, and we have seen already how many\nwarm friendships he had formed in youth and middle age. At the present\ntime, besides Limborch, Le Clerc, Lord Monmouth, and the Mashams,\nwe may mention among his more intimate friends Lord Pembroke, the\nyoung Lord Ashley, Somers, Boyle, and Newton. Lord Pembroke (to whom\nthe _Essay_ is dedicated in what we should now regard as a tone of\noverwrought compliment) opened his town house for weekly meetings in\nwhich, instead of political and personal gossip, things of the mind\nwere discussed. These conversations, \"undisturbed by such as could not\nbear a part in the best entertainment of rational minds, free discourse\nconcerning useful truths,\" were a source of great enjoyment to Locke\nduring his London residence. It was through his introduction that\nLord Pembroke, when sent on a special mission to the Hague, made the\nacquaintance, which afterwards ripened into friendship, of Limborch and\nLe Clerc.\n\nThe correspondence between Locke and Limborch, while Lord Pembroke was\nin Holland, reveals to us the curious fact that there was no organized\ncarrying trade between England and Holland at that time. On returning,\nthe Earl, or his Secretary, was commissioned to bring back a pound of\ntea and copies of the _Acta Eruditorum_. The tea must be had at any\nprice. \"I want the best tea,\" Locke writes to Limborch, \"even if it\ncosts forty florins a pound; only you must be quick, or we shall lose\nthis opportunity, and I doubt whether we shall have another.\" The price\nthat he was ready to pay for a pound of tea would be about 9_l._ at the\npresent value of money. But tea at that time was regarded rather as a\nmedicine than a beverage.\n\nYoung Lord Ashley, it will be recollected, had, like his father, been\nunder the charge of Locke when a child. After being at school for\nsome years at Winchester, and spending some time in travelling on the\nContinent, he was now again in London, living in his father's house at\nChelsea. It is plain that the young philosopher saw a good deal of his\n\"foster-father,\" as he called him, and they must often have discussed\ntogether the questions which were so interesting to them both. Ashley,\nmoreover, who was already beginning to solve the problems of philosophy\nin his own way, addressed a number of letters to Locke, freely, but\ncourteously and good-humouredly, criticising his master's views.\n\nSir John Somers, now Solicitor-General, and successively\nAttorney-General, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, and Lord Chancellor,\nwith the title of Lord Somers, had been known to Locke before\nhis retirement to Holland. They were both of them attached to the\nShaftesbury connexion, and hence, though Somers was nearly twenty years\nthe junior, they had probably already seen a good deal of each other\nwhen William ascended the throne. On Locke's return to England, he\nfound Somers a member of the Convention Parliament. The younger man,\nboth when he was a rising barrister and a successful minister, seems\nfrequently to have consulted the elder one, and Locke's principles\nof government, finance, and toleration must often have exerted a\nconsiderable influence both on his speeches and his measures. Nor had\nLocke any reason to be ashamed of his teaching. \"Lord Somers,\" says\nHorace Walpole, \"was one of those divine men who, like a chapel in a\npalace, remain unprofaned, while all the rest is tyranny, corruption,\nand folly.\" It was, perhaps, through Somers that Locke made the\nacquaintance of another great and wise statesman, Charles Montague,\nsubsequently Lord Halifax, with whom, at least during the later years\nof his life, he had much political connexion, and by whom he was\nfrequently called into counsel.\n\nThe acquaintance between Locke and Newton, of whom Newton was the\njunior by more than ten years, most probably began before Locke's\ndeparture to Holland. Both had then for some time been members of the\nRoyal Society, and both were friends of Hoyle. The first positive\nevidence, however, that we have of their relations is afforded by a\npaper, entitled \"A Demonstration that the Planets, by their gravity\ntowards the Sun, may move in Eclipses,\" and endorsed in Locke's\nhandwriting, \"Mr. Newton, March, 1689.\" In the summer or autumn of the\nsame year, probably, was written the epistle to the reader prefixed\nto the _Essay_. In that occurs the following passage, expressing no\ndoubt Locke's genuine opinion of the great writers whom he names:--\"The\nCommonwealth of learning is not at this time without master-builders,\nwhose mighty designs in advancing the sciences will leave lasting\nmonuments to the admiration of posterity; but every one must not\nhope to be a Boyle or a Sydenham, and in an age that produces such\nmasters as the great Huygenius and the incomparable Mr. Newton, with\nsome other of that strain, 'tis ambition enough to be employed as\nan under-labourer in clearing ground a little, and removing some of\nthe rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge.\" Locke interested\nhimself long and warmly in attempting to obtain for Newton some\nlucrative appointment in London. Newton's letters occasionally betray\nquerulousness, but there can be no reason to suppose that Locke at all\nflagged in his efforts, and ultimately, with the assistance of Lord\nMonmouth, Lord Halifax, and others, they proved successful. Newton was,\nin course of time, appointed Warden, and then Master of the Mint. In\nJanuary, 1690-91, the philosopher and the mathematician met at Oates.\nTheir conversation there probably turned chiefly on theological topics,\nas was the case with most of their correspondence afterwards. Newton\nwas greatly interested not only in theological speculation, but in the\ninterpretation of prophecy and Biblical criticism, on both of which\nsubjects works by him are extant. In 1690 he wrote a manuscript letter\nto Locke, entitled \"An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions\nof Scripture in a Letter to a Friend,\" the texts criticised being 1\nJohn v. 7, and 1 Timothy iii. 16. The corruption of the former of these\ntexts is now almost universally, and that of the latter very generally,\nacknowledged; but so jealous of orthodoxy, in respect of anything which\nseemed to affect the doctrine of the Trinity, was public opinion at\nthat time, that Newton did not dare to publish the pamphlet. Locke,\nwho was meditating a visit to Holland, was, by Newton's wish, to have\ntaken it over with him, and to have had it translated into French, and\npublished anonymously. But the intended visit fell through, and Locke\nsent the manuscript over to Le Clerc. So timid, however, was Newton,\nthat he now tried to recall it. \"Let me entreat you,\" he writes to\nLocke, \"to stop the translation and impression of the papers as soon\nas you can, for I desire to suppress them.\" Le Clerc thought more\nnobly and more justly that \"one ought to risk a little in order to be\nof service to those honest folk who err only through ignorance, and\nwho, if they get a chance, would gladly be disabused of their false\nnotions.\" The letter was not published till after its author's death,\nand at first it appeared only in an imperfect form. In Bishop Horsley's\nedition of Newton it is printed complete. Newton's unpublished writings\nleave no doubt that he did not accept the orthodox doctrine of the\nTrinity, and it may have been his consciousness of this fact which made\nhim so afraid of being known to be the author of what was merely a\ncritical exercitation. But we must recollect that at this time Biblical\ncriticism was unfamiliar to the majority of divines, and that to\nquestion the authenticity of a text was generally regarded as identical\nwith doubting the doctrine which it was supposed to illustrate. One of\nthe other subjects on which Locke and Newton corresponded was a parcel\nof red earth which had been left by Boyle, who died on Dec. 30, 1691,\nto Locke and his other literary executors, with directions for turning\nit into gold. Locke seems to have had some faith in the alchemistic\nprocess, but it is plain that Newton had none. He was satisfied that\n\"mercury, by this recipe, might be brought to change its colours\nand properties, but not that gold might be multiplied thereby.\" Some\nworkmen of whom he had heard as practising the recipe had been forced\nto other means of living, a proof that the multiplication of gold did\nnot succeed as a profession. Occasionally, owing to Newton's nervous\nand irritable temper, which at one time threatened to settle down into\na fixed melancholy, there seems to have been some misunderstanding of\nLocke on his part, but it is satisfactory to know that the two greatest\nliterary men of their age in England, if not in Europe, lived, almost\nwithout interruption, in friendly and even intimate relations with each\nother.\n\nThe close intercourse between Boyle and Locke, which dated from their\nOxford days, seems to have been kept up till the time of Boyle's death.\nLocke made a special journey to London to visit him on his death-bed,\nand was, as we have seen, left one of his literary executors. The\nediting of Boyle's _General History of the Air_ had already been\ncommitted to Locke, and seems to have occupied much of his time during\nthe year 1691.\n\nOf Locke's less-known friends, Dr. David Thomas must have died between\n1687, when there is a letter from him to Locke, and 1700, when Locke\nspeaks of having outlived him. Sir James Tyrrell, another old college\nfriend, usually spoken of in Locke's correspondence as Musidore, was in\ncommunication with him as late as April, 1704, the year of his death.\nHe had, as already stated, been present at the \"meeting of five or six\nfriends\" in Locke's chamber, which first suggested the composition of\nthe _Essay_.\n\nEdward Clarke, of Chipley, near Taunton, was another friend of old\nstanding. He was elected member for Taunton in King William's second\nparliament, and from that time forward resided much in London. This\ncircumstance probably deepened the intimacy between the two friends; at\nall events, during the remainder of Locke's life they are constantly\nassociated. Locke advised Clarke as to the education of his children,\none of whom, Betty, a little girl now about ten years old, seems to\nhave been regarded by him with peculiar affection; in his letters he\nconstantly speaks of her as \"Mrs. Locke\" and his \"wife.\" The playful\nbanter with which Locke treated his child friends affords unmistakable\nevidence of the kindness and simplicity of his heart.\n\nWilliam Molyneux, who for many years represented the University of\nDublin in the Irish parliament, referred to in the second edition of\nthe _Essay_ as \"that very ingenious and studious promoter of real\nknowledge, the worthy and learned Mr. Molyneux,\" \"this thinking\ngentleman whom, though I have never had the happiness to see, I am\nproud to call my friend,\" first became acquainted with Locke in 1692.\nIn his _Dioptrica Nova_, published in that year, he had paid Locke a\ngraceful, if not an exaggerated, compliment. \"To none do we owe, for\na greater advancement in this part of philosophy,\" he said, speaking\nof logic, \"than to the incomparable Mr. Locke, who hath rectified more\nreceived mistakes, and delivered more profound truths, established on\nexperience and observation, for the direction of man's mind in the\nprosecution of knowledge, which I think may be properly termed logic,\nthan are to be met with in all the volumes of the ancients. He has\nclearly overthrown all those metaphysical whimsies which infected men's\nbrains with a spice of madness, whereby they feigned a knowledge where\nthey had none, by making a noise with sounds without clear and distinct\nsignifications.\" Locke was pleased with the compliment, and a letter\nacknowledging the receipt of Molyneux's book was the beginning of a\nlong correspondence between them, which ended only with the early death\nof Molyneux, at the age of forty-two, in 1698. For nearly six years the\nfriends, though in constant correspondence, had never seen each other,\nMolyneux residing in Dublin, and suffering, like Locke, from feeble\nhealth, which prevented him from crossing the Channel. But the feeling\nof affection seems soon to have become as intense, notwithstanding\nAristotle's dictum that personal intercourse is essential to the\ncontinuance of friendship, as if they had lived together all their\nlives. In his second letter to Molyneux, dated Sept. 20, 1692, Locke\nsays:--\"You must expect to have me live with you hereafter, with\nall the liberty and assurance of a settled friendship. For meeting\nwith but few men in the world whose acquaintance I find much reason\nto covet, I make more than ordinary haste into the familiarity of a\nrational inquirer after and lover of truth, whenever I can light on\nany such. There are beauties of the mind as well as of the body, that\ntake and prevail at first sight; and, wherever I have met with this,\nI have readily surrendered myself, and have never yet been deceived\nin my expectation.\" Molyneux had thought of coming over to England on\na visit to Locke in the summer of 1694. Locke, in a letter written\nin the following spring, after deprecating the risks to which his\njourney might expose him adds:--\"And yet, if I may confess my secret\nthoughts, there is not anything which I would not give that some\nother unavoidable occasion would draw you into England. A rational,\nfree-minded man, tied to nothing but truth, is so rare a thing that I\nalmost worship such a friend; but, when friendship is joined to it,\nand these are brought into a free conversation, where they meet and\ncan be together, what is there can have equal charms? I cannot but\nexceedingly wish for that happy day when I may see a man I have so\noften longed to have in my embraces.... You cannot think how often\nI regret the distance that is between us; I envy Dublin for what I\nevery day want in London.\" In a subsequent letter, written in 1695, he\nwrites:--\"I cannot complain that I have not my share of friends of all\nranks, and such whose interest, assistance, affection, and opinions\ntoo, in fit cases, I can rely on. But methinks, for all this, there is\none place vacant that I know nobody would so well fill as yourself; I\nwant one near me to talk freely with \"de quolibet ente,\" to propose to\nthe extravagancies that rise in my mind; one with whom I would debate\nseveral doubts and questions to see what was in them.\" Thomas Molyneux,\nthe brother of William, a physician practising in Dublin, had met\nLocke during his stay in Holland. They shared a common admiration for\nSydenham, and the correspondence with William Molyneux revived their\nfriendship, though it never attained to nearly the same proportions\nas that between Locke and the other brother. A passage on what may\nbe called the Logic of Medicine, in one of Locke's letters to Thomas\nMolyneux, is worth quoting:--\"What we know of the works of nature,\nespecially in the constitution of health and the operations of our own\nbodies, is only by the sensible effects, but not by any certainty we\ncan have of the tools she uses or the ways she walks by. So that there\nis nothing left for a physician to do but to observe well, and so,\nby analogy, argue to like cases, and thence make to himself rules of\npractice.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nNov. 7, 1691, is the date of the dedication of the Tract entitled\n\"Some considerations on the Lowering of Interest and Raising the\nValue of Money in a letter sent to a Member of Parliament, 1691.\" This\nletter was published anonymously in the following year. The member of\nParliament was undoubtedly Sir John Somers, who had \"put\" the author\n\"upon looking out his old papers concerning the reducing of interest\nto 4 per cent., which had so long,\" nearly twenty years, \"lain by,\nforgotten.\" The time to which Locke refers must be the year 1672, when\nthe Exchequer was closed, that is to say, all payments to the public\ncreditors suspended for a year, and the interest on the Bankers'\nadvances reduced to six per cent. This nefarious act of spoliation,\nwhich caused wide-spread ruin and distress, was devised while\nShaftesbury was Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the main blame in the\ntransaction probably attaches to Clifford. \"The notions concerning\ncoinage,\" which are embodied in the second division of the pamphlet,\nhad been put into writing and apparently shown to Somers about twelve\nmonths before the date of the letter. On the occasion and contents of\nthis pamphlet, as well as of Locke's other tracts on Finance, I shall\nhave an opportunity of speaking in subsequent chapters.\n\nMany of my readers will sympathize with Locke in his complaints of\nthe waste of his time during this autumn. Writing to Limborch on\nNov. 14, he says, \"I know not how it is, but the pressure of other\npeople's business has left me no time or leisure for my own affairs.\nDo not suppose that I mean public business. I have neither health, nor\nstrength, nor knowledge enough to attend to that. And when I ask myself\nwhat has so hampered and occupied me during the last three months, it\nseems as if a sort of spell had been thrown on me, so that I have got\nentangled first in one business and then in another, without being\nable to avoid it, or, in fact, to foresee what was coming.\" Locke was\npre-eminently a good-natured man, and, like many other men before and\nsince, he had to pay the penalty of good-nature by doing a vast amount\nof other people's business, often probably with scant acknowledgment.\nOne of the occupations in which he was engaged may have been doctoring\nthe household at Oates and advising medically for his friends at a\ndistance; but in business of this kind, though he may have grudged the\ntime it consumed, he seems always to have taken special delight.\n\nIn the summer of 1692 he spent a considerable time in London. His\nmain business there seems to have been to see the _Third Letter on\nToleration_ through the press. But he was now, as ever, ready to do\nwork for his friends. Thus he obtained for Limborch the permission to\ndedicate the book which he had so long been preparing, the _Historia\nInquisitionis_, to Tillotson, then Archbishop of Canterbury. Limborch\nevidently set great store on this privilege. Of Tillotson, Locke seems\nto have entertained a very high opinion; which, indeed, was thoroughly\nwell deserved. \"In proportion to his renown and worth is his modesty.\"\nTillotson was not one of those liberal Churchmen whom promotion\nmakes timid, or cold to their former friends. He was maligned by an\nunforgiving and unscrupulous faction, more, perhaps, than any other man\nof that age, but he always retained the courage of his opinions.\n\nLocke's health seems to have suffered much during the winter of\n1692-93. But he still occupied himself with literary work. While in\nHolland, he had corresponded frequently with Clarke on the education\nof his children. Yielding to the solicitation of many of his friends,\nespecially William Molyneux, he now reduced the letters to the form\nof a treatise, which was published in July, 1693, under the title\n_Some Thoughts Concerning Education_. The dedication to Clarke bears\ndate in the previous March, and is signed by Locke, though his name\ndoes not appear on the title-page. The most serious work, however,\nin which he was now engaged, was the preparation of a second edition\nof the _Essay_. The first edition seems to have been exhausted in\nthe autumn of 1692. On the alterations and additions introduced into\nthe second edition, there is an interesting correspondence with\nMolyneux, ranging from Sept. 20, 1692, to May 26, 1694, when the new\nedition, notwithstanding the \"slowness of the press,\" was \"printed\nand bound, and ready to be sent\" to Locke's Dublin correspondent.\nBesides suggestions in detail, such as those touching the questions\nof liberty and personal identity, Molyneux urged Locke to undertake a\nseparate work on Ethics, a suggestion which for a time he entertained\nfavourably, but which, owing partly, perhaps, to his idea that\nthe principles and rules of morality ought to be presented in a\ndemonstrative form, was never carried out. Though he does not seem\nto have doubted that \"morality might be demonstrably made out,\" yet\nwhether he was able so to make it out was another question. \"Every\none could not have demonstrated what Mr. Newton's book hath shown to\nbe demonstrable.\" He was, however, ready to employ the first leisure\nhe could find that way. But the treatise never proceeded beyond a few\nrough notes. Another reason assigned, at a later period, for not more\nseriously setting about this task was that \"the Gospel contains so\nperfect a body of ethics, that reason may be excused for that inquiry,\nsince she may find man's duty clearer and easier in revelation than\nin herself.\" This argument shows at once the sincerity of Locke's\nreligious convictions, and the inadequate conception he had formed\nto himself of the grounds and nature of Moral Philosophy. Another\nsuggestion made by Molyneux was that, besides a second edition of the\n_Essay_, Locke should bring out, in accordance with the main lines of\nhis philosophy, another work forming a complete compendium of logic\nand metaphysics for the use of University Students. No one can regret\nthat the author of the _Essay_ did not adopt this advice. Apropos of\nthis suggestion, Molyneux tells Locke that Dr. Ashe, then Provost of\nTrinity College, Dublin, \"was so wonderfully pleased and satisfied\nwith the work, that he has ordered it to be read by the bachelors in\nthe college, and strictly examines them in their progress therein.\"\nFrom that time onwards the _Essay_ seems to have held its ground as a\nclass-book at Dublin. The reception which it met with at first from the\nauthorities of Locke's own University, as we shall see presently, was\nwidely different. In May, 1694, the second edition was on sale, and\nwas quickly exhausted. The third edition, which is simply a reprint\nof the second, appeared in the following year. One more edition, the\nfourth, dated 1700, but issued in the autumn of 1699, appeared during\nLocke's lifetime. In it there are important alterations and additions,\nincluding two new chapters--that on Enthusiasm, and the very important\none at the end of the second book, on the Association of Ideas. A Latin\ntranslation of the _Essay_ by Richard Burridge, an Irish Clergyman,\nwas published at London, in 1701; and a French translation by Pierre\nCoste, who was a friend of Le Clerc, and had been acting for some time\nas tutor to young Frank Masham at Amsterdam, in 1700. John Wynne,\nFellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and subsequently Bishop of St. Asaph,\npublished an abridgment for the use of University Students, in 1696.\nWynne had a large number of pupils, and the compendium of Locke's\nphilosophy appears to have obtained rapid circulation among the younger\nstudents in Oxford, only, however, as we shall soon see, to encounter\nthe opposition of the authorities.\n\nIt is notable that all the important alterations and additions made in\nthe second edition of the _Essay_ were printed on separate slips, and\nissued, without charge, to those who possessed the first. Sir James\nTyrrell's copy of the first edition, with these slips pasted in, is in\nthe British Museum; and that of William Molyneux in the Bodleian. In\nsending to Molyneux the second edition, Locke had also forwarded the\nslips to be pasted in the first, which would \"help to make the book\nuseful to any young man;\" but whether Molyneux gave the copy now in the\nBodleian to \"any young man,\" and, if so, who the fortunate young man\nwas, we do not learn.\n\nThe first writer who had taken up his pen against Locke was John\nNorris, the amiable and celebrated Vicar of Bemerton, a religious and\nphilosophical mystic, whose works are even still in repute. Norris\nwas a disciple of Malebranche, and his attack seems to have had the\neffect of leading Locke to make a careful study of the theories of the\nFrench philosopher. The result was two tractates--one entitled _Remarks\nupon some of Mr. Norris's Books_; the other, _An Examination of P\u00e8re\nMalebranche's Opinion of seeing all things in God_. The latter is much\nthe more considerable production of the two, and is mainly remarkable\nas showing that Locke saw clearly that the conclusions, subsequently\ndrawn by Berkeley, must follow from Malebranche's premises. Neither\nof these tracts was published till after Locke's death. The reasons\nassigned by him for not publishing his criticisms of Malebranche are\ncharacteristic: \"I love not controversies, and have a personal kindness\nfor the author.\"\n\nLocke's literary activity during the years 1689-95 appears excessive;\nbut we must recollect that he had already accumulated a vast amount\nof material, and that, during the latter part of that time at least,\nhe must have enjoyed considerable leisure in his country retirement.\nIn the early months of 1695 he was mainly occupied with a new\nsubject--the _Essay on the Reasonableness of Christianity as delivered\nin the Scriptures_. Though this work was designed to establish the\nsupernatural character of the Christian revelation, and its importance\nto mankind, it by no means satisfied the canons of a strict orthodoxy.\nSome of the more mysterious and less intelligible doctrines of\nthe Christian Church, if not denied, were at least represented as\nunessential to saving faith. Hence it at once provoked a bitter\ncontroversy. \"The buz, the flutter, and noise which was made, and the\nreports which were raised,\" says its author, \"would have persuaded the\nworld that it subverted all morality, and was designed against the\nChristian religion. I must confess, discussions of this kind, which I\nmet with, spread up and down, at first amazed me; knowing the sincerity\nof those thoughts which persuaded me to publish it, not without some\nhope of doing some service to decaying piety and mistaken and slandered\nChristianity.\" The first assailant was John Edwards, a former Fellow\nof St. John's College, Cambridge, who in a violent pamphlet, entitled\n_Thoughts concerning the Causes and Occasions of Atheism_, included\nthe _Reasonableness of Christianity_ in his attack, and insinuated\nthat Locke was its author by affecting to disbelieve it. The book\nwas described as \"all over Socinianized,\" and a Socinian, if not an\natheist, is, according to Edwards, \"one that favours the cause of\natheism.\" That there was much similarity between the apparent opinions\nof Locke and the doctrines of Faustus Socinus himself, though not\nof Socinus's more extreme followers, who were also popularly called\nSocinians, admits of no doubt. But the charge of favouring atheism can\nonly have been brought against a man who regarded the existence of God\nas \"the most obvious truth that reason discovers,\" and who appears\nnever to have questioned the reality of supernatural intervention, from\ntime to time, in the world's history, because it happened to be the\nroughest stone that could be found in the controversial wallet. Locke\nreplied to Edwards with pardonable asperity, in a tract entitled _A\nVindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity_. Edwards, of course,\nsoon replied to the reply, and attacked Locke more violently than ever\nin his _Socinianism Unmasked_. No rejoinder followed, but the adversary\nwas not to be let off on such easy terms. Another shot was fired,\nand _The Socinian Creed_, as venomous and more successful than the\n_Socinianism Unmasked_, provoked _A Second Vindication_. This lengthy\npamphlet, far more elaborate than the first, must have occupied much\nof Locke's time. It did not appear till the spring of 1697. Edwards\nreturned to the charge; but, fortunately, Locke had the wisdom and\ncourage to refrain from carrying on the fight. Bitter as the feeling\nagainst Locke must have been in many clerical circles at this time,\nthere were not wanting, even amongst the clergy, those who sympathized\nwith his views. Mr. Bolde, a Dorsetshire clergyman, came forward to\ndefend him against Edwards. And Molyneux, writing on the 26th of\nSeptember, 1696, says, \"As to the _Reasonableness of Christianity_,\nI do not find but it is very well approved of here amongst candid,\nunprejudiced men, that dare speak their thoughts. I'll tell you what a\nvery learned and ingenious prelate said to me on that occasion. I asked\nhim whether he had read that book, and how he liked it. He told me very\nwell; and that, if my friend Mr. Locke writ it, it was the best book\nhe ever laboured at; 'but,' says he, 'if I should be known to think\nso, I should have my lawns torn from my shoulders.' But he knew my\nopinion aforehand, and was, therefore, the freer to commit his secret\nthoughts in that matter to me.\" We may not be disposed to think highly\nof the \"very learned and ingenious prelate;\" but the story shows, as\nindeed we know from other sources, to what a volume of opinion, both\nlay and clerical, on the expediency of presenting Christianity in\na more \"reasonable\" and less mysterious and dogmatic form, Locke's\ntreatise had given expression. Men were anxious to retain their beliefs\nin the supernatural order of events, but they were equally anxious to\nharmonize them with what they regarded as the necessities of reason.\nThe current of \"Rationalism\" had set in.\n\nIt is satisfactory to know that, amidst all these controversial\nworries, which must have been most distasteful to a man of his habits\nand temper, Locke enjoyed the solace of pleasant companionship and\ndomestic serenity. He was thoroughly at home at Oates, and Lord\nMonmouth and his other friends in and near town seem always to have\nbeen ready to accord him a hearty welcome, whenever he cared to pay\nthem a visit. His little \"wife,\" Betty Clarke, and her brother used\noccasionally to come on visits to him at the Mashams, and he seems to\nhave taken great delight in the society of Esther Masham, who was now\nrapidly growing up to womanhood. \"In raillery,\" wrote this lady many\nyears afterwards, \"he used to call me his Laudabridis, and I called\nhim my John.\" The winters of 1694-95 and 1695-96 were unusually long\nand severe, and in both of them Locke appears to have been under\napprehensions that his chronic illness might terminate in death.\n\nIt may here be noticed that in the summer of 1694 Locke became one of\nthe original proprietors of the Bank of England, which, having been\nprojected by a merchant named William Paterson, had been established\nby Act of Parliament in April of that year, and invested with certain\ntrading privileges, on condition that it should lend its capital to\nthe Government at eight per cent. interest. The plan had encountered\ngreat opposition, especially among the landed gentry, and had only been\ncarried through the strenuous exertions of Montague and the Whig party.\nLocke subscribed 500_l._, a considerable sum in those days.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nPOLITICAL AFFAIRS.--PUBLIC OCCUPATIONS.--RELATIONS WITH THE KING.\n\n\nNotwithstanding his retirement to Oates, and his incessant literary\nactivity, Locke never lost his interest in politics, and, as the friend\nand admirer of men like Monmouth, Somers, and Clarke, he must always\nhave exercised a considerable influence on the policy of the Whig\nparty. In the spring of 1695 he seems to have taken a primary share\nin determining a measure which for a time divided the Houses of Lords\nand Commons, and which must have enlisted his warmest sympathies. This\nwas the repeal of the Licensing Act. The English Press had never been\nwholly free, and the Act of Charles II., which was still in force,\nwas peculiarly stringent. Occasion had been taken by the Commons,\nwhen it was proposed, in the session of 1694-95, to renew certain\ntemporary statutes, to strike out this particular statute from the\nlist. The Lords dissented, and re-inserted it. The Commons refused to\naccept the amendment. A conference of both Houses took place, Clarke\nof Chipley being the leading manager on the part of the Commons, and\nthe result was that the Lords waived their objections. The paper of\nreasons tendered by the Commons' managers on this occasion is said,\nby a writer in the _Craftsman_ for Nov. 20, 1731, to have been drawn\nup by Locke. As Clarke was one of his most intimate friends, and as\nthe Reasons correspond pretty closely with a paper of criticisms on\nthe Act written by Locke, this statement is probably true, so far\nat least as concerns their substance. The arguments employed are\nmainly practical, consisting of objections in detail, and pointing\nout inconveniences, financial and otherwise, which resulted from the\noperation of the Act. But these arguments, \"suited to the capacity\nof the parliamentary majority,\" did, as Macaulay has remarked, what\nMilton's _Areopagitica_ had failed to do, and a vote, \"of which the\nhistory can be but imperfectly traced in the Journals of the House, has\ndone more for liberty and for civilization than the Great Charter or\nthe Bill of Rights.\" Locke's paper of criticisms, which is published\n_in extenso_ in _Lord King's Life_, asks very pertinently \"why a man\nshould not have liberty to print whatever he would speak, and be\nanswerable for the one, just as he is for the other, if he transgresses\nthe law in either.\" He then offers a suggestion, to take the place of\nthe licensing provisions:--\"Let the printer or bookseller be answerable\nfor whatever is against law in the book, as if he were the author,\nunless he can produce the person he had it from, which is all the\nrestraint ought to be upon printing.\" It appears from this paper that\nthe monopoly of the Stationers' Company had become so oppressive that\nbooks printed in London could be bought cheaper at Amsterdam than in\nSt. Paul's Church Yard. Except for the few monopolists, the book-trade\nhad been ruined in England. But then, he reflects, \"our ecclesiastical\nlaws seldom favour trade, and he that reads this Act with attention\nwill find it upse\" (that is, highly) \"ecclesiastical.\"\n\nThis question had hardly been settled before Locke had another\nopportunity of influencing legislation on a subject which absorbed\nmuch of his interest, and on which he had already employed his pen.\nProbably at no time in the history of our country has the condition of\nthe coinage become so burning a question, or caused such wide-spread\ndistress, as in the years immediately succeeding the Revolution. To\nunderstand the monetary difficulties occasioned by clipping the coin,\nit must be remembered that, at the time of which I am speaking, two\nkinds of silver money (if we neglect the imperfectly milled money which\nwas executed between 1561 and 1663) were in circulation, hammered money\nwith unmarked rims, and what was called milled money, from being made\nin a coining-mill, with a legend on the rim of the larger and graining\non the rim of the smaller pieces. The latter kind of coins, too, had\nthe additional advantage of being almost perfectly circular, while\nthe shape of the former was almost always more or less irregular. The\nhammered money, it is plain, could be easily clipped or pared, whereas\nthe milling was an absolute protection against this mode of fraud.\nThough milling, in much its present form, had been introduced into our\nmint in the year 1663, and then became the exclusive mode of coining,\nthe old hammered money still continued to be legal tender; and, as the\nmilled money was always worth its weight in silver, and the hammered\nmoney was generally current at something much above its intrinsic\nworth, the milled money was naturally melted down or exported abroad,\nleaving the hammered money in almost exclusive possession of the field.\nThe milled money disappeared almost as fast as it was coined, and\nthe hammered money was clipped and pared more and more, till it was\noften not worth half or even a third of the sum for which it passed.\nAt Oxford, indeed, a hundred pounds' worth of the current silver\nmoney, which ought to have weighed four hundred ounces, was found to\nweigh only a hundred and sixteen. Every month the state of things\nwas becoming worse and worse. The cost of commodities was constantly\nrising, and every payment of any amount involved endless altercations.\nIn a bargain not only had the price of the article to be settled, but\nalso the value of the money in which it was to be paid. A guinea, which\nat one place counted for only twenty-two shillings, would at another\nfetch thirty, and might have brought far more, had not the Government\nfixed that sum as the maximum at which it would be taken in the payment\nof taxes. Thus, all commercial transactions had become disarranged;\nno one knew what he was really worth, or what any commodity might\ncost him a few months hence. Macaulay, who has given a most graphic\ndescription of the financial condition of the country at this time,\nhardly exaggerates when he says, \"It may be doubted whether all the\nmisery which had been inflicted on the English nation in a quarter of a\ncentury by bad kings, bad ministers, bad parliaments, and bad judges,\nwas equal to the misery caused in a single year by bad crowns and bad\nshillings.\" Almost from the moment of his return to England, Locke\nhad felt the gravest anxiety on this subject. \"When at my lodgings in\nLondon,\" says Lady Masham, speaking of the time immediately succeeding\nthe Revolution, \"the company there, finding him often afflicted about a\nmatter which nobody else took any notice of, have rallied him upon this\nuneasiness as being a visionary trouble, he has more than once replied,\n'We might laugh at it, but it would not be long before we should want\nmoney to send our servants to market with for bread and meat,' which\nwas so true, five or six years after, that there was not a family\nin England who did not find this a difficulty.\" The letter on \"Some\nConsiderations of the Consequences of Lowering of Interest and Raising\nthe Value of Money,\" the latter part of which dealt with this question,\nis dated as early as Nov. 7, 1691, and had been, in the main, as he\ntells us, put into writing about twelve months before. Here he not only\npoints out the intolerable character of the grievances under which the\nnation was labouring, but also protests most emphatically against one\nof the proposed methods of remedying them, namely, \"raising the value\nof money,\" as it was called; that is, depreciating the intrinsic value\nof the money coined, or raising the denomination, so, for instance, as\nto put into a crown-piece or a shilling, when coined, less than the\ncustomary amount of silver. To the consideration of this scheme, which\nat one time found much favour, we shall soon see that he had occasion\nto recur. Universal as were the complaints about the existing state\nof things, no active measures, if we except wholesale and frequent\nhangings for \"clipping the coin,\" and increased measures of vigilance\nfor the purpose of detecting the delinquents, were taken for stopping\nthe evil, until the year 1695. Under the malign ascendancy of Danby,\nthe Government had other views and objects than to ameliorate the\ncondition of the people. But, in the years 1694 and 1695, other and\nmore enlightened statesmen were gradually winning their way into the\nroyal councils, or beginning to occupy a more important position in\nthem. For at this period, we must recollect, the high officers of state\nwere not all, as now, necessarily of one uniform political pattern.\nIn April, 1694, immediately after the establishment of the Bank of\nEngland, Charles Montague, afterwards Lord Halifax, one of the greatest\nof English financiers, had been made Chancellor of the Exchequer.\nAnd, on occasion of the king's departure for the Continent in May,\n1695, two of Locke's most intimate friends--Lord Keeper Somers and the\nEarl of Pembroke--were nominated among the seven Lords Justices, who\nwere to govern the kingdom during William's absence. To discerning\nand judicious statesmen like Somers and Montague it must have been\nquite apparent that the penal laws for protecting the coinage were\naltogether inadequate to the purpose. The gains to be made were so\nlarge and so easily obtained, that men were ready to run the risk of\nthe punishment. And, moreover, even if the crime were detected, the\npunishment was by no means certain or unattended with sympathy. Great\nas were the suffering and inconveniences inflicted on the people by\nthese practices, the punishment of death appeared to many to be in\nexcess of the offence. Juries were often unwilling to convict, and\nthe disgrace incurred by the criminal was very different from that\nwhich attended the murderer or the ordinary thief. That wise financial\nlegislation, and not the more stringent execution of the penal laws,\nwas the true and only effectual mode of eradicating the disease, was\nat length recognized by the Government, and the new Lords Justices\nsoon set about to devise the remedy. To Locke, who was well known to\nhave been the author of the pamphlet which appeared on the subject in\n1692, they naturally turned for advice. In the early part of October,\nwhile the king was on his way back from his successful campaign in the\nNetherlands, he was summoned up from Oates to confer with them. Writing\nto Molyneux the next month, and informing him of the fact, he adds,\nwith characteristic modesty: \"This is too publicly known here to make\nthe mentioning of it to you appear vanity in me.\" Notwithstanding the\nsubordinate part which Locke here seems to assign to himself, there\ncan be no doubt that his share in the measures of the Government,\nas ultimately matured, was a principal, if not the principal, one.\nThat legislative measures would now be taken, there was no longer\nany question. But the danger of which Locke was chiefly afraid was\nthe raising the denomination of the coin, or, in other words, the\nlegalized depreciation of the currency, a scheme against which he had\nformerly protested, and which was now officially recommended to the\nGovernment by one of their own subordinates, William Lowndes. Orders\nhad been given to Lowndes, who, after many years of good service in\na subordinate capacity, had recently been appointed Secretary to the\nTreasury, to collect statistics relating to the monetary condition\nof the country, and to report on the most practicable methods of\nre-coining the current silver money. In executing the former part of\nhis task, he left no doubt as to the necessity of speedily applying\nsome remedy. The silver coins brought into the Exchequer during three\nmonths of 1695 ought to have weighed 221,418 ounces. Their actual\nweight was 113,771 ounces, or barely over one-half. In consequence of\nthe vitiating, diminishing, and counterfeiting of the current moneys,\nhe says, \"It is come to pass that great contentions do daily arise\namongst the king's subjects in fairs, markets, shops, and other places\nthroughout the kingdom, about the passing and refusing of the same, to\nthe great disturbance of the public peace. Many bargains, doings, and\ndealings are totally prevented and laid aside, which lessens trade in\ngeneral.\" The necessity of setting the price of commodities according\nto the value of the money to be received, is, he considers, \"one great\ncause of raising the price, not only of merchandise, but even of\nedibles and other necessaries for the sustenance of the common people,\nto their great grievance.\" So far, his political economy was perfectly\nsound; but when he comes to discuss the question of re-coinage, he\nadvocates, without any misgiving, a scheme for the depreciation of the\ncurrency to the extent of one-fifth. A crown-piece was henceforth to\ncount as 6_s._ 3_d._, and the nominal value of half-crowns, shillings,\nand sixpences was to be raised proportionately. Locke, with his clearer\nmind, saw, of course, that this would only be for the state to do\nsystematically and by law the very same thing for which the clippers\nwere being hanged. It would be to legalize the disarrangement of all\nmonetary transactions, and to deprive every creditor of one-fifth of\nhis debts. Montague and Somers were as clear on this point as he was,\nand Somers at once urged him to reply. Locke had returned to Oates,\nin consequence of the sudden death of Mrs. Cudworth, on the 16th of\nNovember, and at once set about his answer.\n\nThis tract, which formed a pamphlet of more than a hundred pages, was\nsubmitted to the Lords Justices, printed, and published before the\nend of December. It was entitled _Further Considerations concerning\nRaising the Value of Money_, and simplified and enforced the arguments\ncontained in a previous pamphlet which Locke had also drawn up for the\nuse of the Lords Justices earlier in the year, under the title, _Some\nObservations on a Printed Paper, entitled, For Encouraging the Coining\nSilver money in England, and after for keeping it here_. Meanwhile,\nMontague had, under the sanction of a committee of the whole House,\nintroduced his resolutions into the House of Commons, and there can be\nlittle doubt that, in drawing up these, he and the Lords Justices had\nbeen assisted by Locke. Any way, the resolutions embodied in the main\nthe opinions which Locke had been so instrumental in impressing on\nthose in authority. The old standard value of the silver pieces was to\nbe retained both as to weight and fineness, the point for which he had\nfought so persistently. The clipped pieces were, after a certain day,\nonly to be received in payment of taxes, or in loans to the Exchequer;\nafter a further day, they were to cease to be legal tender altogether.\nAll the hammered money, as it came into the mint in payment of loans or\ntaxes, was to be re-coined as milled money, and the loss to be borne\nby the Exchequer. When the resolution that the old standard was to be\nretained was put to the House, it was challenged, and an amendment\nmoved by those who were of Lowndes' opinion that the word \"both\" be\nomitted. On a division, there were 225 for retaining the word, and\n114 against. The House thus, by a large majority, affirmed what all\neconomists would now regard as an elementary principle of finance. A\nBill embodying the resolution was soon passed, but, in consequence\nof difficulties with the Lords, had to be dropped. A fresh Bill was\nintroduced on the 13th of January, substantially embodying the same\nprovisions as the old Bill, and was hurried through its various stages\nso fast that it received the Royal Assent on the 21st of January,\n1695-96. Up to the 4th of May, 1696, the clipped money was to be\nreceived in payment of taxes, and up to the 24th of June, for loans\nor other payments into the Exchequer. But after the 10th of February\nensuing, it was to cease to be legal tender in ordinary payments. Thus,\nin spite of much temporary inconvenience caused by the scarcity of\nmoney during the time of transition, the silver coinage of the country\nwas, once for all, put upon a sound basis. Late as Locke's pamphlet\nappeared, it probably helped to facilitate the passage of the Bill\nthrough the two Houses, as the reiterated statement of his opinions\nhad undoubtedly contributed in very large measure to shape and confirm\nthe action of the government. It may be mentioned that the loss to the\nExchequer, estimated as 1,200,000_l._, was made up by the imposition of\na house tax and window tax, the former of which still continues, while\nthe latter existed within the memory of many men now only of middle age.\n\nGreat as is the debt which philosophy owes to Locke's _Essay_,\nconstitutional theory to his treatises on government, the freedom of\nreligious speculation to his Letters on Toleration, and the ways of\n\"sweet reasonableness\" to all these, and indeed to all his works, it\nwould form a nice subject of discussion whether mankind at large has\nnot been more benefited by the share which he took in practical reforms\nthan by his literary productions. It would undoubtedly be too much to\naffirm that, without his initiative or assistance, the state of the\ncoinage would never have been reformed, the monopoly of the Stationers'\nCompany abolished, or the shackles of the Licensing Act struck off. But\nhad it not been for his clearness of vision, and the persistence of\nhis philanthropic efforts, these measures might have been indefinitely\nretarded or clogged with provisos and compromises which might have\nrobbed them of more than half their effects. A generation ago it was\nthe fashion in many circles to speak contemptuously of the writers\nand statesmen of William's reign, and even now but scant and grudging\njustice is often done to them. The admirers of mystical philosophy and\nromantic politics may, however, fairly be challenged to show that their\nheroes, whether in letters or action, have borne equal fruit with the\nvigorous understanding and plain, direct, practical common-sense of men\nlike Halifax, Somers, and Locke.\n\nIt has already been stated that soon after his return to England\nLocke was appointed a Commissioner of Appeals, a post which, though\nnot entirely without duties, seems to have taken up but little of his\ntime. One of his letters to Clarke shows the difficulty of forming\na quorum, and perhaps illustrates the fact that when the duties of\nan office are slight, they are generally neglected altogether. But\ntowards the end of the year 1695 the government, now virtually under\nthe leadership of Somers, determined to revive the council of trade and\nplantations of which, it will be recollected, Locke had been Secretary\nwhen Shaftesbury's counsels were in the ascendant at the court of\nCharles II., as far back as the year 1673. At first there were some\ndifficulties with the king, but ultimately; on the 15th of May, 1696,\nhe was induced to issue the patent appointing and defining the duties\nof a commission. Besides the great officers of state, there were to\nbe certain paid commissioners, with a salary of 1000_l._ a year, of\nwhom Locke was one. His name was inserted in the first draft of the\ncommission without his express consent, and he appears, as we can well\nunderstand, to have accepted the office only with extreme reluctance.\nWriting to Molyneux, who had congratulated him on the appointment, he\nsays with evident sincerity:\n\n \"Your congratulation I take as you meant, kindly and seriously,\n and, it may be, it is what another would rejoice in; but 'tis a\n preferment I shall get nothing by, and I know not whether my country\n will, though that I shall aim at with all my endeavours. Riches\n may be instrumental to so many good purposes, that it is, I think,\n vanity rather than religion or philosophy to pretend to contemn them.\n But yet they may be purchased too dear. My age and health demand a\n retreat from bustle and business, and the pursuit of some inquiries\n I have in my thoughts makes it more desirable than any of those\n rewards which public employments tempt people with. I think the\n little I have enough, and do not desire to live higher or die richer\n than I am. And therefore you have reason rather to pity the folly,\n than congratulate the fortune, that engages me in the whirlpool.\"\n\nThe duties of the commission could hardly have been more widely defined\nthan they were. It was to be at once a Board of Trade, a Poor-Law\nBoard, and a Colonial Office. The commissioners were to inquire\ninto the general condition of trade in the country, both internal\nand external, and \"to consider by what means the several useful and\nprofitable manufactures already settled in the kingdom may be further\nimproved; and how, and in what manner, new and profitable manufactures\nmay be introduced.\" They were also \"to consider of some proper methods\nfor setting on work and employing the poor of the kingdom, and making\nthem useful to the public, and thereby easing our subjects of that\nburthen.\" Finally, they were to inform themselves of the present\ncondition of the plantations, as the colonies were then called, not\nonly in relation to commerce, but also to the administration of\ngovernment and justice, as well as to suggest means of rendering them\nmore useful to the mother country, especially in the supply of naval\nstores. Here, surely, was work enough for men far younger and more\nvigorous than Locke; but, having undertaken the duties of the office,\nhe appears in no way to have spared himself. In the summer and autumn\nmonths he resided in London, and attended the meetings of the board\npersonally, often day after day, and in the evening as well as the\nday-time. In the winter and spring his health compelled him to reside\nat Oates, but he was constantly sending up long minutes for the use of\nhis colleagues. Mr. Fox Bourne, who has been carefully through the\nproceedings of the commission, informs us that Locke was altogether\nits presiding genius. He was a member of this board a little over\nfour years, having been compelled by increasing ill-health, or, as\nthe minutes of the council put it, \"finding his health more and more\nimpaired by the air of this city,\" to resign on the 28th of June, 1700.\nThe king, we are told by Lady Masham, was most unwilling to receive his\nresignation, \"telling him that, were his attendance ever so small, he\nwas sensible his continuance in the commission would be useful to him,\nand that he did not desire he should be one day in town on that account\nto the prejudice of his health.\" Locke, however, was too conscientious\nto retain a place with large emoluments, of which he felt that he could\nno longer perform the duties to his own satisfaction. It is interesting\nto find that his successor was Matthew Prior, the poet.\n\nWhen we have seen the wide powers of the commission, we hardly need\nfeel surprise that its business was multifarious. It at once set to\nwork to collect evidence of the state of trade in the colonies, of\nour commercial relations with foreign ports, of the condition of the\nlinen and paper manufactures at home, of the number of paupers in the\nkingdom, and the mode of their relief, as well as to devise means for\nincreasing the woollen trade and preventing the exportation of wool.\nLocke was specially commissioned \"to draw up a scheme of some method\nof determining differences between merchants by referees that might\nbe decisive without appeal.\" In the winter of 1696-97, finding that\nhis work followed him to Oates, and being then apparently in a feebler\nstate of health than usual, he made an ineffectual attempt to escape\nfrom his new employment, but Somers refused to hand in his resignation\nto the king. From a Letter to Molyneux we find that it was not simply\nhis ill-health, but the \"corruption of the age,\" which made him averse\nto continuing in office. And we can well understand how troublesome,\nand apparently hopeless, it must have been to deal with the various\nthreatened interests of that time, when monopolies, patents, and\npensions were regarded by the governing classes almost as a matter of\ncourse.\n\nIn the summer of 1697 the principal subject which engaged the attention\nof the commission was the best means of discouraging the Irish woollen\nmanufacture, and of, at the same time, encouraging the Irish linen\nmanufacture. Each commissioner was invited to bring up a separate\nreport. Three did so. Locke's was the one selected, and, with slight\nalterations, was signed by the other commissioners on the 31st of\nAugust, and forwarded almost immediately afterwards to the Lords\nJustices. This interesting state-document proceeds entirely upon the\nnotions of protection to native industries which were then almost\nuniversally current among statesmen and merchants. The problems were\nto secure to England the monopoly of what was then regarded as its\npeculiar and appropriate manufacture, the woollen trade, and to assign\nto Ireland, in return for the restrictions imposed upon her, some\ncompensating branch of industry. According to the ideas then commonly\nprevalent, the scheme was perfectly equitable to both countries. But,\nnaturally, the interests of England are put in the foreground. The\ninterests of the Irish people, however, were not to be neglected, and\nwhat Locke doubtless conceived as full compensation was to be given\nthem for the loss of their woollen trade. \"And since it generally\nproves ineffectual, and we conceive it hard to endeavour to drive men\nfrom the trade they are employed in by bare prohibition, without\noffering them at the same time some other trade which, if they please,\nmay turn to account, we humbly propose that the linen manufacture be\nset on foot, and so encouraged in Ireland as may make it the general\ntrade of that country as effectually as the woollen manufacture is,\nand must be, of England.\" Linen cloth and all other manufactures made\nof flax or hemp, without any mixture of wool, were to be exported to\nall places duty free, as indeed had already been provided by Act of\nParliament with regard to England. One method by which Locke proposed\nto encourage the linen manufacture in Ireland runs so counter to modern\nnotions with regard both to the education of the poor and to freedom\nof employment, that it may be interesting to the reader to see the\nsuggestion at length:\n\n \"And, because the poorest earning in the several parts of the linen\n manufacture is at present in the work of the spinners, who therefore\n need the greatest encouragement, and ought to be increased as much as\n possible, that therefore spinning schools be set up in such places\n and at such distances as the directors shall appoint, where whoever\n will come to learn to spin shall be taught gratis, and to which all\n persons that have not forty shillings a year estate shall be obliged\n to send all their children, both male and female, that they have\n at home with them, from six to fourteen years of age, and may have\n liberty to send those also between four and six if they please, to\n be employed there in spinning ten hours in the day when the days are\n so long, or as long as it is light when they are shorter: provided\n always that no child shall be obliged to go above two miles to any\n such school.\"\n\nThen there follow many other minute and paternal regulations of the\nsame kind, the object of which was to turn the whole Irish nation\ninto spinners, and to supply with linen not only \"the whole kingdom\nof England,\" but foreign markets as well. The Irish authorities,\nhowever, were meanwhile preparing a scheme of their own, and, after\ncontroversies between the English and Irish officials, extending over\nmore than two years, Locke's plan was finally laid aside in favour\nof that of Louis Crommelin. Besides the attempt to monopolize the\nwoollen trade for England and the linen trade for Ireland, much of\nthe time of the Council was devoted to schemes for the protection of\nnative industries, by forbidding or throwing obstacles in the way of\nimportation and exportation. But Locke and his colleagues were here\nonly following the track marked out for them by the ordinary opinion of\nthe time.\n\nThe main subject which occupied the attention of the Council in the\nautumn of 1697 was the employment of the idle or necessitous poor.\nFrom the beginning of its sessions, it had been collecting evidence\non this subject, and, in September of this year, it was decided that\neach commissioner should draw up a scheme of reform, to be submitted\nto the Council. As had been the case with his report on the Irish\nlinen manufacture, Locke's was the one selected. From a variety of\ncauses, however, his suggestions were never carried into effect, and\nthe various efforts of William's Government to deal with the gigantic\nproblem of pauperism proved abortive.\n\nLocke's paper of suggestions assumes as a datum what was always\nregarded at this time as an axiom of poor-law legislation, namely, that\nit is the duty of each individual parish to maintain and employ its\nown poor, having, as a set-off, the right of coercing the able-bodied\nto work. Pernicious and partial as this principle was, we should have\nmore occasion for surprise if we found Locke contravening it than\nconforming to it. The merit of his paper is that it offers excellent\nsuggestions for minimizing the evils necessarily attaching to the\nsystem then in vogue. The recent growth of pauperism he refers to\n\"relaxation of discipline and corruption of manners, virtue and\nindustry being as constant companions on the one side as vice and\nidleness are on the other. The first step, therefore,\" he continues,\n\"towards the setting of the poor on work ought to be a restraint of\ntheir debauchery by a strict execution of the laws provided against it,\nmore particularly by the suppression of superfluous brandy-shops and\nunnecessary ale-houses, especially in country parishes not lying upon\ngreat roads.\" He then proposes a series of provisions, sufficiently\nstringent, for the purpose of compelling the idle and able-bodied\npoor to work, stating that, upon a very moderate computation, above\none-half of those who receive relief from the parishes are able to earn\ntheir own livelihoods. In maritime counties, all those not physically\nor mentally incapacitated, who were found begging out of their own\nparish without a pass, were to be compelled to serve on board one of\nhis Majesty's ships, under strict discipline, for three years. In\nthe inland counties, all those so found begging were to be sent to\nthe nearest house of correction for a like period. But, besides the\nable-bodied paupers, there were a great number not absolutely unable or\nunwilling to do something for their livelihood, and yet prevented by\nage or circumstances from wholly earning their own living. For these\nhe proposes to find employment in the woollen or other manufactures,\nso as, at all events, to diminish the cost of their maintenance to the\npublic, and at the same time increase the industrial resources of the\ncountry. One of the most distinctive features of Locke's scheme was the\nproposal to set up working-schools for spinning or knitting, or some\nother industrial occupation, in each parish, \"to which the children\nof all such as demand relief of the parish, above three and under\nfourteen years of age, whilst they live at home with their parents, and\nare not otherwise employed for their livelihood by the allowance of the\noverseers of the poor, shall be obliged to come.\" The children were to\nbe fed at school, and this mode of relief was to take the place of the\nexisting allowance in money paid to a father who had a large number of\nchildren, which, we are not surprised to learn, was frequently spent in\nthe alehouse, whilst those for whose benefit it was given were left to\nperish for want of necessaries. The food of the children of the poor at\nthat time, we are told, was seldom more than bread and water, and often\nthere was a very scanty supply of that. Another advantage which Locke\nproposed to effect by the institution of these schools was the moral\nand religious instruction of the children. They would be obliged to\ncome constantly to church every Sunday, along with their schoolmasters\nor dames, \"whereby they would be brought into some sense of religion,\nwhereas ordinarily now, in their idle and loose way of bringing up,\nthey are as utter strangers both to religion and morality as they are\nto industry.\" One further provision of this scheme may be noticed, as\noffering some mitigation of the parochial system of relief which then\nobtained, namely, \"that in all cities and towns corporate the poor's\ntax be not levied by distinct parishes, but by one equal tax throughout\nthe whole corporation.\"\n\nThe anxiety of the king to retain Locke on the Commission has already\nbeen mentioned. It would appear that they were in not infrequent\nconference, and we know that the king entertained a very high opinion\nboth of his integrity and of his political capacity. A good deal of\nmystery attaches to one of their interviews, but the explanation of\nit proffered by Mr. Fox Bourne possesses, at any rate, considerable\nplausibility. One bitter January morning, in the winter of 1697-98,\nwhile Locke was at Oates, he received a pressing summons from the\nking to repair to Kensington. He was at the time suffering more than\nordinarily from the bronchial affection to which he was constantly\nsubject, and Lady Masham attempted to dissuade him from running the\nrisk of the journey, but in vain. When he returned, the only account\nthat he would give of the interview was that \"the king had a desire\nto talk with him about his own health, as believing that there was\nmuch similitude in their cases.\" It appears, however, from a letter\naddressed by Locke to Somers a few days after his return to Oates, that\nthe king had offered him some important employment, and that he had\nexcused himself on the ground of his weak health, and his inexperience\nin that kind of business, the business being such as required \"skill\nin dealing with men in their various humours, and drawing out their\nsecrets.\" Mr. Fox Bourne forms the reasonable conjecture that Locke\nhad been asked to go as right-hand man to William Bentinck, Earl of\nPortland, who had just been nominated as special ambassador to the\nCourt of France. The peace of Ryswick had been ratified in the previous\nNovember, and the mission to Louis XIV. was, of course, one requiring\ngreat tact and sagacity. William had strongly urged Locke, some years\nbefore, to represent him on another very important mission, the one\nto the Elector of Brandenburg, and it may be that, on the present\noccasion, no fitter person occurred to him. Any way, the employment was\none which would have advanced Locke in riches and honour; but as such,\nglad as he might have been to serve his country disinterestedly to the\nbest of his power, it had no attractions for him. \"He must have a heart\nstrongly touched with wealth or honours who, at my age, and laboring\nfor breath, can find any great relish for either of them.\"\n\nOn one occasion Locke accompanied the king, the latter going\n_incognito_ to a meeting of the Society of Friends, where they listened\nto the famous Quaker preacheress, Rebecca Collier. Locke afterwards\nsent her a parcel of sweetmeats, with a very complimentary letter, and\nis said to have found the meeting so agreeable that it removed his\nobjections to a female ministry.\n\nWith his resignation of the Commissionership of the Board of Trade, in\nthe summer of 1700, Locke's public life comes to an end. His friend\nSomers had been sacrificed to the incessant and malignant attacks of\nthe Tories, and dismissed from the Chancellorship, in the previous\nspring; and to those statesmen who were inspired by a sincere and\nsimple desire for the well-being of their country the political outlook\nhad become anything but cheerful. The condition of Locke's health\nwas quite a sufficient reason for his desiring to be relieved of the\nanxieties of office; but we can hardly doubt that, on other grounds as\nwell, he was glad to escape from so intricate a maze as the field of\npolitics bade fair soon to become.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nCONTROVERSY WITH STILLINGFLEET.--OTHER LITERARY OCCUPATIONS.--DOMESTIC\nLIFE.--PETER KING.--LATTER YEARS.--DEATH.\n\n\nIn order to resume the thread of Locke's literary and domestic life,\nit is now necessary to go back two or three years. I have already\nspoken of no less than three literary controversies in which he found\nhimself engaged, one on financial, and two on religious questions. Of\nthe latter, one was occasioned by the publication of the _Letter on\nToleration_, the other by that of the _Reasonableness of Christianity_.\nThe _Essay_ also had been attacked by Norris and other writers,\nincluding one very acute antagonist, John Serjeant, or Sergeant, a\nRoman Catholic priest; but to these critics Locke did not see fit\nto reply. The strictures on Norris only appear among his posthumous\nworks. But in the autumn of 1696 Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester,\nin his _Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity_,\npointedly drew attention to the principles of the _Essay_, as favouring\nanti-Trinitarian doctrine. Stillingfleet's position and reputation\nappeared to demand an answer, and before the year, according to the\nold style, was out, Locke's _Letter to the Bishop of Worcester_ was\npublished. The Bishop's Answer, Locke's Reply to the Answer, and the\nBishop's \"Answer to Mr. Locke's Second Letter, wherein his notion of\nideas is proved to be inconsistent with itself, and with the articles\nof the Christian faith,\" all followed, one on the other, within a\nfew months. The last letter of the series is \"Mr. Locke's Reply to\nthe Bishop of Worcester's Answer to his Second Letter,\" published in\n1699. Stillingfleet died soon after the publication of this pamphlet,\nand thus the voluminous controversy came to an end. There can be no\ndoubt that the antagonists were unequally matched. Stillingfleet was\nclumsy both in handling and argument, and constantly misrepresented\nor exaggerated the statements of his adversary. On the other hand,\nLocke, notwithstanding an unnecessary prolixity which wearies the\nmodern reader, shows admirable skill and temper. He deals tenderly\nwith his victim, as if he loved him, but, none the less, never fails\nto despatch him with a mortal stab. Stillingfleet, indeed, was no\nmetaphysician, and not very much of a logician. He did not see at\nall clearly where the orthodox doctrines were affected, and where\nthey remained unaffected, by Locke's philosophy, and he no doubt\nconsiderably exaggerated the bearing of Locke's direct statements upon\nthem. At the same time, it is impossible to deny that his instincts\nwere perfectly sound in apprehending grave dangers to the current\ntheological opinions, and still more, perhaps, to the established\nmode of expressing them, from the \"new way of ideas.\" Religious, and\neven devout, as are those portions of the _Essay_ in which Locke has\noccasion expressly to mention the leading principles of the Christian\nfaith, yet his handling of many of the metaphysical terms and notions\nwhich modern divines, whether Catholic or Protestant, had taken on\ntrust from their predecessors, the fathers and schoolmen, was well\ncalculated to alarm those who had the interest of theological orthodoxy\nat heart. The playful freedom with which he discusses the idea of\nsubstance seemed, not unreasonably, to strike at the terminology of\nthe Athanasian Creed, while, most unreasonably, his resolution of\npersonal identity into present and recollected states of consciousness\nappeared inconsistent with the doctrine of the Resurrection of the\nDead. A far more powerful solvent, however, of the unreflecting and\ncomplacent orthodoxy, into which established churches, and, in fact,\nall prosperous religious communities, are apt to lapse, was to be\nfound in the general drift and tendency rather than in the individual\ntenets of Locke's philosophy. And this fact, though only very dimly and\nconfusedly, Stillingfleet appears to have seen. To insist that words\nshall always stand for determinate ideas, to attempt to trace ideas\nto their original sources, and to propose to discriminate between the\ncertainty and varying probabilities of our beliefs, according to the\nnature of the evidence on which they rest, is to encourage a state of\nmind diametrically the opposite of that which humbly and thankfully\naccepts the words of the religious teacher, without doubt and without\ninquiry. To the religious teacher whose own beliefs rest on no previous\ninquiry, who has never acquired \"a reason for the faith that is in\nhim,\" such a state of mind must necessarily be not only inconvenient\nbut repulsive; and hence we have no right to feel surprised when an\nattempt is made to expose it to popular odium, or to fasten on those\nwho entertain it injurious or opprobrious epithets. The old-standing\nfeud, of which Plato speaks, between poetry and philosophy, has in\ngreat measure been transferred, in these latter times, to philosophy\nand theology. But in both cases the antagonism is an unnecessary one.\nThe highest art is compatible with the most profound speculation. And\nso we may venture to hope that the simple love of truth, combined, with\nthe charity \"which never faileth,\" will lead men not further away from\nthe Divine presence, but nearer to, and into it.\n\nHere I thankfully take leave of the mass of controversial literature,\nin the writing of which so much of Locke's latter life was spent. The\ncontroversies were not of his own seeking, and, from all that we know\nof his temper and character, must have been as distasteful to him as\nthey are wearisome to us. But prolonged and reiterated controversy\nwas of the habit of the time, and no man who cared candidly and\nunreservedly to express his opinions on any important question could\nhope to escape from it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the autumn of 1697, while the controversy with Stillingfleet was\nat its hottest, Locke wrote to Molyneux:--\"I had much rather be at\nleisure to make some additions to my book of Education and my Essay\non Human Understanding, than be employed to defend myself against the\ngroundless, and, as others think, trifling quarrel of the bishop.\" He\nwas at this time engaged on preparing the fourth edition of the _Essay_\nfor the press. In addition to this task, or rather as part of it, he\nwas also employing himself on writing the admirable little tract on\nthe Conduct of the Understanding, the contents of which I shall notice\nin a subsequent chapter. This treatise, which was not published till\nafter his death, was originally intended as an additional chapter to\nthe _Essay_. Speaking of it in one of his letters to Molyneux, he\nsays:--\"I have written several pages on this subject; but the matter,\nthe farther I go, opens the more upon me, and I cannot yet get sight of\nany end of it. The title of the chapter will be 'Of the Conduct of the\nUnderstanding,' which, if I shall pursue as far as I imagine it will\nreach, and as it deserves, will, I conclude, make the largest chapter\nof my Essay.\" It did not, however, appear in the new edition, nor did\nLocke ever reduce its parts into order, or put the finishing stroke\nto it. He may, perhaps, have intended to revise it for a subsequent\nedition of the _Essay_, but the fourth was the last which appeared\nduring his lifetime.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBefore speaking of the literary labours which occupied the last\nyears of Locke's life, I may here conveniently recur to his domestic\nhistory. Of his quiet life with the Mashams little more need be said.\nHad Lady Masham been his daughter, she could not have tended him more\ncarefully or lovingly; and had he been her father, he could not have\nentertained a more sincere solicitude for the welfare of her and her\nfamily. All Locke's friends were welcome at Oates, and seem to have\nbeen regarded quite as much as friends of the Mashams as of his own.\nAnd Oates appears in every respect to have been as much Locke's home\nas that of its owners. In the whole of his correspondence, there does\nnot appear the slightest trace of those petty piques and annoyances,\nthose small _d\u00e9sagr\u00e9ments_, which are so apt to grow up among people\nwho live much together, even when, at bottom, they entertain a deep\nlove and admiration for each other. On the side of the Mashams we know\nthat the tide of affection ran equally smooth. Lady Masham and Esther\nacted as his nurses, and with one or other of them he seems to have\nshared all his pursuits. The intimacy and sweetness of these relations\nsurely imply as rare an amount of amiability of temper and power of\nwinning regard on the one side, as of patience and devotion on the\nother. But then Locke possessed the inestimable gift of cheerfulness,\nwhich renders even the invalid's chamber a joy to those who enter it.\nAll the glimpses we obtain of the life, at Oates represent it as\na gay and pleasant one, none the less gay and pleasant because its\nenjoyments were modest and rational. After complaining to Molyneux of\nthe persistent asthma which confined him a close prisoner to the house\nduring the winter of 1697-98, he adds, \"I wish, nevertheless, that\nyou were here with me to see how well I am; for you would find that,\nsitting by the fireside, I could bear my part in discoursing, laughing,\nand being merry with you, as well as ever I could in my life. If you\nwere here (and if wishes of more than one could bring you, you would\nbe here to-day) you would find three or four in the parlour after\ndinner, who, you would say, passed their afternoons as agreeably and\nas jocundly as any people you have this good while met with.\" Locke's\nconversation is reported to have been peculiarly fascinating. He had a\nlarge stock of stories, and is said to have had a singularly easy and\nhumorous way of telling them.\n\nAmong the more frequent guests at Oates at this time were Edward Clarke\nand his daughter Betty, Locke's \"little wife,\" now fast growing up to\nwomanhood, a son of Limborch, and a son of Benjamin Furly, both engaged\nin mercantile pursuits in London, and a young kinsman of Locke's own,\nPeter King, of whom I shall have more to say presently. One of the most\nanxiously expected guests, whose visits had been often promised and\noften deferred, was the correspondent of whom we have heard so much,\nWilliam Molyneux. At length, after the rising of the British Parliament\nin the summer of 1698, the two friends met. Even on this occasion,\nMolyneux had been obliged to defer his promised visit for some weeks,\non account of a recent trouble which he had brought on himself by\nthe publication of a \"home-rule\" pamphlet, protesting against the\ninterference of the English Parliament in Irish affairs. Both Houses\nhad joined in an address to the king, praying for punishment on the\noffender; but the king, possibly through Locke's intervention, had\nwisely taken no notice of the petition. Any way, after the prorogation,\nMolyneux seems to have felt sufficiently secure to venture on a journey\nacross the Channel. He and Locke were together for some time both in\nLondon and at Oates. The friends, though they had been in such constant\nand intimate correspondence for six years, had never met before. We\nmay easily imagine how warm was their greeting, how much they had to\ntalk about, and how loath they were to separate. \"I will venture to\nassert to you,\" wrote Molyneux on his return to Dublin, \"that I cannot\nrecollect, through the whole course of my life, such signal instances\nof real friendship as when I had the happiness of your company for five\nweeks together in London. That part thereof especially which I passed\nat Oates has made such an agreeable impression on my mind that nothing\ncan be more pleasing.\" Shortly after writing this letter, Molyneux died\nat the early age of forty-two. \"His worth and his friendship to me,\"\nwrites Locke, in a letter to Burridge, the Latin translator of the\n_Essay_, \"made him an inestimable treasure, which I must regret the\nloss of the little remainder of my life, without any hopes of repairing\nit any way.\" He then characteristically goes on to ask if there is any\nservice he can render to Molyneux's son. \"They who have the care of him\ncannot do me a greater pleasure than to give me the opportunity to show\nthat my friendship died not with his father.\" One of the most amiable\nand attractive traits in Locke's character is the eagerness which he\nalways displayed in advising, encouraging, or helping forward the sons\nof his friends. Any opportunity of doing so always gave him the most\nevident satisfaction, as, from his correspondence, we see in the case\nof Frank Masham, the two young Furlys, young Limborch, and numerous\nothers.\n\nI must now no longer delay the introduction to the reader of Locke's\nyoung cousin, Peter King. Locke had an uncle, Peter Locke, whose\ndaughter Anne had married Jeremy King, a grocer and salter in a\nsubstantial way of business at Exeter. Such a marriage was not\nnecessarily any disparagement to Anne Locke's family, as the present\nline of demarcation between professional men and the smaller gentry,\non the one side, and substantial retail tradesmen, on the other,\nhardly existed at that time. They had a son, Peter, born in 1669, who\nwas consequently Locke's first cousin once removed. The boy seems\nfor some time to have been employed in his father's business, but he\nhad a voracious appetite for books, and showed a decided talent for\nthe acquisition of learning. Locke, on one of his visits to Exeter,\ndiscovered these qualities, and persuaded Peter King's parents to\nallow him to change his mode of life, and study for one of the learned\nprofessions. Whether he went to any English school does not appear;\nbut, during Locke's stay in Holland, he resided for some time in the\nUniversity of Leyden. His studies there embraced at least classics,\ntheology, and law; and when he returned to England, apparently in\n1690, he brought back with him a pamphlet entitled _An Enquiry into\nthe Constitution and Discipline of the Primitive Church_. As in this\ntreatise he maintained that Presbyterianism was the original form\nof Church government, he probably never had any serious intention,\nnotwithstanding his theological proclivities of entering holy orders\nin the Established Church. Any way, in October, 1694, he was entered\na student of the Middle Temple; and in Trinity Term, 1698, he was\ncalled to the bar. During his residence in London as a law student,\nhe must have been frequently at Oates, and Locke must have frequently\nvisited him in his chambers in the Temple. The first extant letter\nfrom Locke to King, dated June 27, 1698, at any rate, assumes intimacy\nand frequency of intercourse. \"Your company here had been ten times\nwelcomer than any the best excuse you could send; but you may now\npretend to be a man of business, and there can be nothing said to you.\"\nVery sound was the advice with which the elder relative concluded his\nletter to the young barrister: \"When you first open your mouth at the\nbar, it should be in some easy plain matter that you are perfectly\nmaster of.\" King's success in his profession was very rapid, and he\nsoon became one of the most popular counsel on the Western Circuit. In\nthe general election of 1700 he attained one of the first objects of\nambition at which a rising young barrister generally aims--a seat in\nthe House of Commons. Owing, probably, to his cousin's influence with\nthe Whig leaders, he was returned for the small borough of Beer Alston,\nin Devonshire, which he continued to represent in several successive\nParliaments. Locke, writing to him shortly before the meeting of\nParliament, entreats him not to go circuit, as he had intended to\ndo, but to devote himself at once to his Parliamentary duties. \"I am\nsure there was never so critical a time, when every honest member of\nParliament ought to watch his trust, and that you will see before the\nend of the next vacation.\" The loss to his pocket, his good relative\nintimates, delicately enough, shall be amply made up to him. King took\nhis cousin's advice on this point, but, fortunately and wisely, did\nnot take it on another. \"My advice to you is not to speak at all in\nthe House for some time, whatever fair opportunity you may seem to\nhave.\" King was advised to communicate his \"light or apprehensions\"\nto some \"honest speaker,\" who might make use of them for him. Locke,\nwe must remember, was now becoming old, and though not, like many old\nmen, jealous of his juniors, he could not escape the infirmity of all\nold men, that of exaggerating the youthfulness of youth, and so of\ninsisting too stringently on the modesty becoming those in whom he was\ninterested. King broke the ice soon after the meeting of Parliament,\nand Locke had the prudence and good-nature to show no resentment at\nhis advice having been neglected. His cousin, however, never became\na great Parliamentary speaker; but he soon gained a reputation for\nbeing a thoroughly sound lawyer and a thoroughly honest man. He rose\nsuccessively to be Recorder of London, Lord Chief Justice of the Common\nPleas, and Lord High Chancellor of England. He was also ennobled as\nLord King of Ockham, and, by a very curious coincidence, his four\nsons in succession bore the same title. To one of his descendants,\nhis great-grandson, also named Peter, we owe the publication of many\ndocuments and letters connected with Locke, and the biography so well\nknown as _Lord King's Life of Locke_. The present representative of\nthe family, and the direct descendant in the male line of Peter King,\nis the Earl of Lovelace. As Peter King was, to all intents, Locke's\nadopted son, we may thus regard Locke as the founder of an illustrious\nline in the English peerage, and there are certainly few, if any, of\nour ennobled families who can point to a founder whose name is so\nlikely to be the heritage of all future ages.\n\nKing kept Locke well posted in all that went on in Parliament, and\nseems also to have been a constant visitor at Oates. Soon after his\nelection, Sir Francis Masham had considerately proposed to Locke that\nhis cousin should \"steal down sometimes with him on Saturday, and\nreturn on Monday.\" On one of these occasions, in the Easter holidays of\n1701, King was accompanied by young Lord Ashley, now become the third\nEarl of Shaftesbury. Locke had then surmounted his winter troubles, and\nhis old pupil pronounces him as well as he had ever known him.\n\nAmongst Locke's correspondents in these years was the celebrated\nphysician, Dr. Sloane, now Secretary of the Royal Society, afterwards\ncreated Sir Hans Sloane. In writing to him at the end of the century,\nevidently in answer to a request, Locke proposes a scheme for\nrectifying the calendar. Notwithstanding the reformation which had\nalready taken place in many foreign countries, it will be recollected\nthat the English year then began on the 25th of March, instead of the\n1st of January, and that, by reckoning the year at exactly 365\u00bc days,\nor at 11 m. 14 sec. longer than its actual length, our time lagged\nten days behind that of most other European countries, as well as\nthe real solar time. The inconvenience, especially in transactions\nwith foreign merchants, had become very great. The advent of the\nnew century, inasmuch as the centenary year would be counted as a\nleap-year in England, but not in other countries where the new style or\nGregorian calendar prevailed, would add an eleventh day to the amount\nof discrepancy, and hence the subject was now attracting more than\nordinary attention. Locke's remedy was to omit the intercalar day in\nthe year 1700, according to the rule of the Gregorian calendar, as also\nfor the ten next leap-years following, \"by which easy way,\" he says,\n\"we should in forty-four years insensibly return to the new style.\"\n\"This,\" he adds, \"I call an easy way, because it would be without\nprejudice or disturbance to any one's civil rights, which, by lopping\noff ten or eleven days at once in any one year, might perhaps receive\ninconvenience, the only objection that ever I heard made against\nrectifying our account.\" He also suggested that the year should begin,\nas in most other European countries, on the 1st of January. No change,\nhowever, was made till, by an Act of Parliament passed in 1750-51, it\nwas ordered that the year 1752 should begin on the 1st of January, and\nthat the day succeeding the 2nd of September in that year should be\nreckoned as the 14th. Locke's other correspondence with Sloane shows\nthe interest which he still took in medical matters, and how ready he\nalways was to expend time and thought on attending to the ailments of\nhis poor neighbours at Oates.\n\nDuring the latter years of Locke's life his principal literary\nemployment consisted in paraphrasing and writing commentaries on some\nof St. Paul's epistles. He thought that this portion of Scripture\noffered peculiar difficulties, and finding, as he says, that he did\nnot understand it himself, he set to work, rather for his own sake,\nand perhaps also that of the household at Oates, than with any view of\npublication, to attempt to clear up its obscurities. The labour was a\nwork of love; and to a man of Locke's devout disposition, with almost a\nchild-like confidence in the guidance of Scripture, the occupation must\nhave afforded a peculiar solace in the intervals of his disease, and\nas he felt that he was rapidly approaching the confines of that other\nworld which had so long been familiar to his thoughts. Though he was\ninduced to consent to the publication of these commentaries, and though\nhe himself prepared an introduction to them, they did not appear till\nafter his death. They were then issued by instalments, coming out at\nintervals between 1705 and 1707 inclusively.\n\nLocke's political interests, always keen, were specially active in\nthe winter of 1701-02. England was just then on the point of engaging\nin the war of the Spanish Succession. In the previous September an\nalliance against France and Spain had been concluded between the\nemperor and the two great maritime powers, England and Holland. Almost\nimmediately after the conclusion of this treaty, James the Second\nhad died at St. Germain, and not only had the French king allowed\nhis son to be proclaimed King of England but had himself received\nhim with royal honors at the court of Versailles. The patriotic and\nProtestant feeling of the country was thoroughly roused, and the new\nParliament, which met on the 30th of December, was prepared to take\nthe most energetic measures for the purpose of supporting the national\nhonor and the Protestant succession. The king's speech, on opening the\nParliament, excited an outburst of enthusiasm throughout the nation. He\nconjured the members to disappoint the hopes of their enemies by their\nunanimity. As he was ready to show himself the common father of his\npeople, he exhorted them to cast out the spirit of party and division,\nso that there might no longer be any distinction but between those who\nwere friends to the Protestant religion and the present establishment,\nand those who wished for a popish prince and a French government. The\nspeech was printed in English, Dutch, and French, framed, and hung up,\nas an article of furniture, in the houses of good Protestants, both\nat home and abroad. Locke, writing to Peter King four days after the\nmeeting of Parliament, asks him to send a copy of the king's speech,\n\"printed by itself, and without paring off the edges.\" He suggests\nthat, in addition to what the two Houses had done, the city of London\nand counties of England should, \"with joined hearts and hands return\nhis Majesty addresses of thanks for his taking such care of them.\"\n\"Think of this with yourself,\" he says, \"and think of it with others\nwho can and ought to think how to save us out of the hands of France,\ninto which we must fall, unless the whole nation exert its utmost\nvigour, and that speedily.\" He is specially urgent on his cousin not to\nleave town, or to think of circuit business, till the kingdom has been\nput in an effectual state of defence. \"I think it no good husbandry\nfor a man to get a few fees on circuit and lose Westminster Hall.\" By\nlosing Westminster Hall he does not, apparently, mean losing the chance\nof a judgeship, but forfeiting those rights and liberties, and that\npersonal and national independence which the Revolution had only so\nlately restored. \"For, I assure you, Westminster Hall is at stake, and\nI wonder how any one of the house can sleep till he sees England in\na better state of defence, and how he can talk of anything else till\nthat is done.\" But a majority, at least, of the House of Commons was\nfully alive to its responsibilities; enormous supplies were voted, and\nalmost every conceivable measure was taken for securing the Protestant\nsuccession to the crown. A few days after Locke wrote the letter last\nquoted, King William died. His reflections on that event or on the\npolitical prospects under William's successor, we do not possess.\n\nAs the war proceeded, Locke's old friend, the Earl of Monmouth, now\nbecome Earl of Peterborough, was entrusted with a naval expedition\nagainst the Spanish possessions in the West Indies. He had a great\ndesire to see Locke before his departure, and, Locke being unable to\ncome up to London, he and the Countess drove down to Oates about the\nmiddle of November, 1702. It is characteristic of the times that Locke\nwas \"much in pain\" about their getting back safely to town, the days\nbeing then so short. His young friend, Arent Furly, who was also a\nprot\u00e9g\u00e9 and frequent correspondent of Lord Shaftesbury, went out as\nLord Peterborough's secretary, and seems to have acquitted himself\nin the position with marked diligence and success. The early promise\nwhich he gave, however, was soon blighted. This young play-fellow and\nfoster-child, as he might almost have been called, of Locke, died\nonly a few years after him, in 1711 or 1712. Before accompanying Lord\nPeterborough on his expedition, he had been living for some time, first\nat Oates, and afterwards in lodgings in the neighbourhood, for the\npurpose of learning English.\n\nIt is gratifying to find that, during the autumn of this year, Locke\nhad received a visit from Newton. During the discussion of the\nre-coinage question, and the active operations which followed for the\npurpose of carrying out the decisions of Parliament, they must have\nbeen thrown a good deal together. Montague declared that, had it not\nbeen for the energetic measures taken by Newton, as Warden of the Mint,\nthe re-coinage would never have been effected. When, however, Newton\ncame down to visit Locke at Oates, in 1702, their conversation seems to\nhave turned mainly on theological topics. Locke showed Newton his notes\nupon the Corinthians, and Newton requested the loan of them. But, like\nmost borrowers, he neglected to return them, nor did he take any notice\nof a letter from Locke, who was naturally very anxious to recover\nhis manuscript. Peter King was asked to try to manage the matter.\nHe was to call at Newton's residence in Jermyn Street, to deliver a\nsecond note, and to find out, if he could, the reasons of Newton's\nsilence, and of his having kept the papers so long. But he was to do\nthis \"with all the tenderness in the world,\" for \"he is a nice man to\ndeal with, and a little too apt to raise in himself suspicions where\nthere is no ground.\" The emissary was also, if he could do it with\nsufficient adroitness, to discover Newton's opinion of the Commentary.\nBut he was by no means to give the slightest cause of offence. \"Mr.\nNewton is really a very valuable man, not only for his wonderful skill\nin mathematics, but in divinity too, and his great knowledge in the\nScriptures, wherein I know few his equals. And therefore pray manage\nthe whole matter so as not only to preserve me in his good opinion,\nbut to increase me in it; and be sure to press him to nothing but what\nhe is forward in himself to do.\" In this letter Locke, notwithstanding\nthe caution with which he felt it necessary to approach one of so\nsusceptible a temperament, says, \"I have several reasons to think him\ntruly my friend.\" And in this generous judgment there can be little\ndoubt he was right. The friends probably never met again, but Newton is\nsaid to have paid a visit, on one of his journeys perhaps from London\nto Cambridge, to Locke's tomb at High Laver. Peter King succeeded in\nrecovering the manuscript, and at the same time or soon afterwards\nthere came a letter, criticising one of Locke's interpretations, but\nexpressing a general opinion that the \"paraphrase and commentary on\nthese two epistles is done with very great care and judgment.\"\n\nSomething should here be said of two friends whom Locke had made\nin later life, one of whom seems to have been constantly about him\nduring his last years. The less intimate of these was Samuel Bolde, a\nDorsetshire clergyman, who had come forward, in 1697, to defend the\n_Reasonableness of Christianity_ against Edwards' attacks, and who\nafterwards did Locke a similar service in replying to the assailants of\nthe _Essay_. He was one of Locke's correspondents, and once at least\npaid him a visit at Oates. Bolde's outspokenness and independence of\njudgment naturally excited Locke's admiration. There are some memorable\nsentences in a letter written to him in 1699. \"To be learned in the\nlump by other men's thoughts, and to be in the right by saying after\nothers, is the much easier and quieter way; but how a rational man,\nthat should inquire and know for himself, can content himself with a\nfaith or a religion taken upon trust, or with such a servile submission\nof his understanding as to admit all and nothing else but what fashion\nmakes passable among men, is to me astonishing. I do not wonder you\nshould have, in many points, different apprehensions from what you meet\nwith in authors. With a free mind, which unbiassedly pursues truth, it\ncannot be otherwise.\" After expanding these thoughts, and applying them\nto the study of Scripture, he goes on to advise Bolde how to supply a\nmental defect that he had complained of, namely, that \"he lost many\nthings because they slipped from him.\" The simple method was to write\nthem down as they occurred. \"The great help to the memory is writing,\"\nBacon had said. Locke emphasizes the dictum, and adds, \"If you have not\ntried it, you cannot imagine the difference there is in studying with\nand without a pen in your hand.\" \"The thoughts that come unsought, and\nas it were dropped into the mind, are commonly the most valuable of any\nwe have, and therefore should be secured, because they seldom return\nagain.\"\n\nThe other friend, whose acquaintance had only been made during these\nlater years, was Anthony Collins, who was not more than twenty-eight\nyears of age when Locke died. Collins afterwards attained great\ncelebrity as a Deistical writer, but none of his theological works\nappeared till some time after Locke's death. Locke, with his sincere\nand simple belief in the divine origin of the Christian Revelation,\nwould doubtless, had he lived to see them, have been shocked with\ntheir matter, and still more with their style. But at the present time\nCollins presented himself to him simply in the light of an ingenuous\nyoung man, with rare conversational powers and wide interests, and with\nwhat Locke valued far more, an eager desire to find out the truth. No\none can have read the tracts, _An Enquiry concerning Human Liberty_,\nand _Liberty and Necessity_, without recognizing the acuteness and\ndirectness of Collins' intellect, and these, we know, were qualities\nalways peculiarly acceptable to Locke. Moreover, to encourage and bring\nforward younger men had invariably been one of his main delights. Hence\nwe may, perhaps, abate our surprise at the apparently exaggerated\nlanguage in which he addresses this friend, who was so much his junior\nin age, and who must have become known to him only so recently. \"Why\ndo you make yourself so necessary to me? I thought myself pretty loose\nfrom the world; but I feel you begin to fasten me to it again. For you\nmake my life, since I have had your friendship, much more valuable to\nme than it was before.\" \"If I were now setting out in the world, I\nshould think it my great happiness to have such a companion as you,\nwho had a relish for truth, would in earnest seek it with me, from\nwhom I might receive it undisguised, and to whom I might communicate\nfreely what I thought true. Believe it, my good friend, to love truth\nfor truth's sake is the principal part of human perfection in this\nworld and the seed-plot of all other virtues, and, if I mistake not,\nyou have as much of it as I ever met with in anybody.\" Then he adds\npathetically, but with a tone of hopefulness in the labours of others\nwhich is not commonly found amongst old men, \"When I consider how much\nof my life has been trifled away in beaten tracks, where I vamped on\nwith others only to follow those that went before us, I cannot but\nthink I have just as much reason to be proud as if I had travelled\nall England, and, if you will, France too, only to acquaint myself\nwith the roads and be able to tell how the highways lie, wherein\nthose of equipage, and even the herd too, travel. Now, methinks--and\nthese are often old men's dreams--I see openings to truth and direct\npaths leading to it, wherein a little industry and application would\nsettle one's mind with satisfaction, and leave no darkness or doubt.\nBut this is at the end of my day, when my sun is setting; and though\nthe prospect it has given me be what I would not for anything be\nwithout--there is so much irresistible truth, beauty, and consistency\nin it--yet it is for one of your age, I think I ought to say for\nyourself, to set about it.\" What were those \"openings to truth and\ndirect paths leading to it?\" Were they merely the delusive visions of\nan old man's fancies, or had he really formed wider conceptions of\nscience, and pictured to himself more precise and fertile methods of\nreaching it? The sciences, it is needless to observe, have grown vastly\nsince Locke's day; the methods of scientific research are far more\nnumerous, more accurate, richer in their results. Had Locke, in his\nthoughts at this time, at all anticipated the courses which inquiry and\nknowledge have since taken?\n\nThe letter to Collins, from which I have just quoted, was written on\nOct. 29, 1703. Within a year of that date the end came. The wonder,\nindeed, is that, with his persistent malady, aggravated apparently in\nthese latter years with other disorders, Locke's life had continued\nso long. The reasons are probably to be sought in his unfailing\ncheerfulness, in the variety of interests which diverted his mind from\nthe thought of his own ailments, and in the judicious manner in which\nhe regulated his exercise and diet. Of these personal traits something\nmay conveniently here be said. The remarkable cheerfulness of his\ndisposition, his lively sense of humour, and his power of extracting\namusement from all that was going on around him, have frequently come\nbefore us in the course of this biography. His temper was not moody,\nlike that of so many men of letters, but pre-eminently sociable. When\nnot actually engaged in his studies, he always liked to be in company,\nand enjoyed especially the society of young people and children. He had\na happy knack of talking to his companions for the time being on the\nsubjects which interested them most, and in this way he gained a very\nextensive knowledge of the various kinds of business, and of a variety\nof arts and crafts. To working people he was often able to give very\nuseful hints as to their own employments. This union of conversational\nqualities, grave and gay, invariably made him a welcome addition to\nany company, young or old, gentle or simple. An even temper, and a\ncombination of happy gifts of this kind, will carry a man through\nmuch suffering, bodily and mental. From any mental troubles, on his\nown account, Locke seems, during these latter years of his life,\nto have been remarkably free. From bodily suffering he was rarely\nexempt, but he always endured it with resignation, and endeavoured to\nobviate its causes by every precaution, which his prudence or medical\nskill suggested. Thus, we have seen that, whenever it was possible,\nhe preferred the quiet life and pure air of the country to the many\nattractions which the capital must have offered to a man with his wide\nacquaintance, and with so many political and literary interests. In\ndiet he practised an abstemiousness very rare among men of that age.\nHis ordinary drink was water, and to this habit he attributed not only\nhis length of years, but also the extraordinary excellence of his\neyesight. Till recently, a curious relic of Locke's water-drinking\nhabits was preserved in the shape of a large mortar of spongy stone,\nwhich acted as a natural filter, and which he used to call his\nbrew-house. He was assiduous in taking exercise, and was specially fond\nof walking and gardening. In the latter years of his life he used to\nride out slowly every day after dinner. When advising his friend Clarke\nabout his health, he says, \"I know nothing so likely to produce quiet\nsleep as riding about gently in the air for many hours every day,\" and\nthen, like a truly wise doctor, he adds, \"If your mind can be brought\nto contribute a little its part to the laying aside troublesome ideas,\nI could hope this may do much.\" At last, when he was no longer able\nto sit on horseback, he commissioned Collins to have an open carriage\nspecially made for him, the principle on which it was to be constructed\nbeing that \"convenient carries it before ornamental.\"\n\nIn November, 1703, the Heads of Houses at Oxford--who at that time\nconstituted the governing body, and through whose repressive and\nreactionary administration the evil genius of Laud then and long\nafterwards continued to cast a blight on the University--resolved to\ndiscourage the reading of Locke's _Essay_. The attempt was futile, as\nthey relied, not on coercion, but on the influence of their authority,\nwhich appears to have been held very cheap. Locke was now far too\neminent a man to be troubled by so anile a demonstration of folly. \"I\ntake what has been done as a recommendation of my book to the world,\"\nhe says, in a letter to Collins; and then he promises himself and his\nfriend much merriment on the subject when they next meet.\n\nLocke's last literary labour appears to have been his _Fourth Letter\nfor Toleration_. Jonas Proast, after a long interval, had returned to\nthe charge in a pamphlet published in 1704; and Locke, unfortunately,\nthought it incumbent on him to reply, though he had long ceased to\npay any regard to the assailants of the _Essay_. The _Letter_ is\nunfinished. Its last words cannot have been written long before Locke's\ndeath.\n\nThe winter of 1703-04 seems to have been peculiarly trying to his\nhealth. He hardly expected to live through it; but he still maintained\nhis cheerfulness, and followed his usual employments. On the 11th of\nApril, 1704, he made his will--perhaps not his first. To most of his\nfriends, relatives, and dependents he left some remembrance; but the\nbulk of his personal property be left to Frank Masham and Peter King,\nthe latter of whom was sole executor and residuary legatee. All his\nmanuscripts were left to King. Many of these were published for the\nfirst time by the seventh Lord King, in his _Life of Locke_. His land\nhe designedly did not will, and so it devolved by law, in equal shares,\non his two cousins, Peter King and Peter Stratton. His funeral was to\nbe conducted without any ostentation, and what it would otherwise have\ncost was to be divided amongst four poor labourers at Oates.\n\nThe approach of summer had not its usual restorative effect upon him.\nOn the other hand, all the bad symptoms of his disease increased. To\nuse his own expression, \"the dissolution of the cottage was not far\noff.\" In a letter, written on the 1st of June, he earnestly pressed\nKing to come to him, that he might pass some of the last hours of his\nlife \"in the conversation of one who is not only the nearest but the\ndearest to me of any man in the world.\" Both King and Collins seem to\nhave visited him frequently during the last months of his life; and\ntheir society being cheerful, and the topics of their conversation\ninteresting, he appears to have taken great pleasure in their company.\nHe did not, however, find equal enjoyment in the visit of Dr. Edward\nFowler, Bishop of Gloucester, who, like himself, was in a bad state of\nhealth. \"I find two groaning people make but an uncomfortable concert.\"\nThe moral he draws is, that men should enjoy their health and youth\nwhile they have it, \"to all the advantages and improvements of an\ninnocent and pleasant life,\" remembering that merciless old age is in\npursuit of them. The lamp of life was now dimly flickering, but once\nmore it burnt up in the socket before going out forever. Peter King\nhad been married on the 10th of September, and he and his bride must\nbe received with all due honours at Oates. King was asked to cater for\nhis own wedding feast, and goodly and dainty is the list of delicacies\nwhich he was to buy. But something, perhaps, might be omitted in which\nMrs. King took special delight. \"If there be anything that you can\nfind your wife loves, be sure that provision be made of that, and\nplentifully, whether I have mentioned it or no.\" The feast was to be\ncooked by \"John Gray, who was bred up in my Lord Shaftesbury's kitchen,\nand was my Lady Dowager's cook.\" The wedded pair arrived at Oates\ntowards the end of the month, and well can we picture to ourselves the\npride and pleasure with which the genial old man entertained the wife\nof his cousin and adopted son--the adopted son whom he had rescued\nfrom the grocer's shop at Exeter, and whose future eminence he must\nnow have pretty clearly foreseen. A few days after King left Oates, he\nsolemnly committed to him by letter the care of Frank Masham. \"It is my\nearnest request to you to take care of the youngest son of Sir Francis\nand Lady Masham in all his concerns, as if he were your brother. Take\ncare to make him a good, an honest, and an upright man. I have left my\ndirections with him to follow your advice, and I know he will do it;\nfor he never refused to do what I told him was fit.\" Then, turning to\nKing himself, he says, \"I wish you all manner of prosperity in this\nworld, and the everlasting happiness of the world to come. That I loved\nyou, I think you are convinced.\"\n\nPeter King certainly executed the dying request of his cousin, so\nfar as Frank Masham's material interests were concerned. Soon after\nhe became Lord Chancellor, Frank Masham was appointed to the newly\nconstituted office of Accountant-General in the Court of Chancery, a\nlucrative post, conferring the same status as a Mastership.\n\nLocke retained his faculties and his cheerfulness to the last; but he\ngrew gradually weaker day by day. \"Few people,\" says Lady Masham, \"do\nso sensibly see death approach them as he did.\" A few days before his\ndeath he received the sacrament from the parish minister, professing\nhis perfect charity with all men, and his \"sincere communion with\nthe whole Church of Christ, by whatever name Christ's followers call\nthemselves.\" In the last hours he talked much with the Mashams about\ntheir eternal concerns. As for himself he had lived long enough, and\nenjoyed a happy life; but he looked forward to a better. At length,\non the afternoon of the 28th of October, the spirit left him, and the\nearthly tabernacle was dissolved. His body is buried in the churchyard\nof High Laver, in a pleasant spot on the south side of the church. The\nLatin epitaph on the wall above the tomb was written by himself. It\ntells us that he had lived content with his own insignificance: that,\nbrought up among letters, he had advanced just so far as to make an\nacceptable offering to truth alone: if the traveller wanted an example\nof good life, he would find one in the Gospel; if of vice, would that\nhe could find one nowhere; if of mortality, there and everywhere.\n\n\"His death,\" says Lady Masham, \"was, like his life, truly pious, yet\nnatural, easy, and unaffected; nor can time, I think, ever produce a\nmore eminent example of reason and religion than he was, living and\ndying.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nESSAY ON THE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.\n\n\n\"Were it fit to trouble thee,\" says Locke in his Epistle to the Reader,\n\"with the history of this _Essay_, I should tell thee that five or six\nfriends meeting at my chamber, and discoursing on a subject very remote\nfrom this, found themselves quickly at a stand by the difficulties that\nrose on every side. After we had a while puzzled ourselves, without\ncoming any nearer a resolution of those doubts which perplexed us, it\ncame into my thoughts that we took a wrong course; and that, before\nwe set ourselves upon inquiries of that nature, it was necessary to\nexamine our own abilities, and see what objects our understandings were\nor were not fitted to deal with. This I proposed to the company, who\nall readily assented; and thereupon it was agreed that this should be\nour first inquiry.\"\n\nThis passage may serve not only to describe the occasion of Locke's\n_Essay_, but also to indicate the circumstance which constitutes the\npeculiar merit and originality of Locke as a philosopher. The science\nwhich we now call Psychology, or the study of mind, had hitherto,\namongst modern writers, been almost exclusively subordinated to the\ninterests of other branches of speculation. Some exception must,\nindeed, be made in favour of Hobbes and Gassendi, Descartes and\nSpinoza; but all these authors treated the questions of psychology\nsomewhat cursorily, while the two former seem usually to have had in\nview the illustration of some favourite position in physics or ethics,\nthe two latter the ultimate establishment of some proposition relating\nto the nature or attributes of God. We may say then, without much\nexaggeration, that Locke was the first of modern writers to attempt at\nonce an independent and a complete treatment of the phenomena of the\nhuman mind, of their mutual relations, of their causes and limits. His\nobject was, as he himself phrases it, \"to inquire into the original,\ncertainty, and extent of human knowledge; together with the grounds\nand degrees of belief, opinion, and assent.\" This task he undertakes\nnot in the dogmatic spirit of his predecessors, but in the critical\nspirit which he may be said to have almost inaugurated. As far as it\nis possible for a writer to divest himself of prejudice, and to set to\nhis work with a candid and open mind, seeking help and information from\nall quarters, Locke does so. And the effect of his candour on his first\nreaders must have been enhanced by the fact, not always favourable to\nhis precision, that, as far as he can, he throws aside the technical\nterminology of the schools, and employs the language current in the\nbetter kinds of ordinary literature and the well-bred society of his\ntime. The absence of pedantry and of _parti pris_ in a philosophical\nwork was at that time so rare a recommendation that, no doubt, these\ncharacteristics contributed largely to the rapid circulation and the\ngeneral acceptance of the _Essay_.\n\nThe central idea, which dominates Locke's work, is that all our\nknowledge is derived from experience. But this does not strike us so\nmuch as a thesis to be maintained as a conclusion arrived at after\na vast amount of patient thought and inquiry. Have we any ideas\nindependent of experience? or, as Locke phrases it, are there any\nInnate Principles in the mind?\n\n \"It is an established opinion amongst some men that there are in the\n Understanding certain Innate Principles, some Primary Notions, \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 [Greek: koinai ennoiai], characters, as it were, stamped upon\n the mind of man, which the Soul receives in its very first being and\n brings into the world with it.\"\n\nThis is the opinion which Locke examines and refutes in the first, or\nintroductory, book of the _Essay_. It has often been objected that he\nmistakes and exaggerates the position which he is attacking. And so\nfar as his distinguished predecessor, Descartes, is concerned (though\nto what extent Locke has him in mind, his habit of not referring to\nother authors by name prevents us from knowing), this is undoubtedly\nthe case. For Descartes, though he frequently employs and accepts the\nexpression \"innate notions\" or \"innate ideas,\" concedes, as so many\nphilosophers of the same school have done since, that this native\nknowledge is only implicit, and requires definite experiences to\nelicit it. Thus, in his notes on the Programme of Regius, he expressly\ncompares these innate notions or ideas with the nobility which is\ncharacteristic of certain ancient stocks, or with diseases, such as\ngout or gravel, which are said to be \"innate\" in certain families,\nnot \"because the infants of those families suffer from these diseases\nin their mother's womb, but because they are born with a certain\ndisposition or tendency to contract them.\" Here Descartes seems to\nhave been on the very point of stumbling on the principle of heredity\nwhich, in the hands of recent physiologists and psychologists, has done\nso much towards reconciling rival theories on the nature and origin\nof knowledge and clearing up many of the difficulties which attach\nto this branch of speculation. It must be confessed, however, that\nin his better-known works he often employs unguarded and unexplained\nexpressions which might easily suggest the crude form of the _\u00e0 priori_\ntheory attacked by Locke. Still more is this the case with other\nauthors, such as Lord Herbert of Cherbury and Dr. Ralph Cudworth, whose\nworks were in general circulation at the time when Locke was composing\nhis _Essay_. Lord Herbert, though indeed he acknowledges that \"common\nnotions\" (the expression by which he designates _\u00e0 priori_ principles)\nrequire an object to elicit them into consciousness, seems invariably\nto regard them as ready-made ideas implanted in the human mind from\nits very origin. They are given by an independent faculty, Natural\nInstinct, which is to be distinguished from Internal Sense, External\nSense, and Reasoning (\"discursus\"), the sources of our other ideas.\nThey are to be found in every man, and universal consent is the main\ncriterion by which they are to be discriminated. In fact, there can\nbe no doubt that the dogma of Innate Ideas and Innate Principles, in\nthe form attacked by Locke, was a natural, if not the legitimate,\ninterpretation of much of the philosophical teaching of the time, and\nthat it was probably the form in which that teaching was popularly\nunderstood. It lay, moreover, as Locke's phrase is, along the \"common\nroad,\" which was travelled by the majority of men who cared about\nspeculative subjects at all, and from which it was novel, and therefore\ndangerous, to diverge.\n\nThe most effective, perhaps, of Locke's arguments against this doctrine\nis his challenge to the advocates of Innate Principles to produce\nthem, and show what and how many they are. Did men find such innate\npropositions stamped on their minds, nothing could be more easy than\nthis. \"There could be no more doubt about their number than there is\nabout the number of our fingers; and 'tis like, then, every system\nwould be ready to give them us by tale.\" Now \"'tis enough to make\none suspect that the supposition of such innate principles is but an\nopinion taken up at random; since those who talk so confidently of\nthem are so sparing to tell us which they are.\" (Bk. I., ch. iii., \u00a7\n14.) The great majority, indeed, of those who maintain the existence\nof innate principles and ideas attempt no enumeration of them. Those\nwho do attempt such an enumeration differ in the lists which they draw\nup, and, moreover, as Locke shows in the case of the five practical\nprinciples of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, give no sufficient reason why\nmany other propositions, which they regard as secondary and derived,\nshould not be admitted to the same rank with the so-called innate\nprinciples, which they assume to be primary and independent. Locke is\nhere treading on safer ground than in many of his other criticisms. The\nfact is that it is impossible clearly to discriminate between those\npropositions which are axiomatic and those which are derived--or, in\nthe language of the theory which Locke is combating, between those\nwhich are innate and those which are adventitious. Race, temperament,\nmental capacity, habit, education, produce such differences between\nman and man that a proposition which to one man appears self-evident\nand unquestionable will by another be admitted only after considerable\nhesitation, while a third will regard it as doubtful, or even false.\nEspecially is this the case, as Locke does not fail to point out, with\nmany of the principles of religion and morals, which have now been\nreceived by so constant a tradition in most civilized nations that\nthey have come to be regarded as independent of reason, and, if not\n\"ingraven on the mind\" from its birth, at least exempt from discussion\nand criticism. The circumstance, however, that they are not universally\nacknowledged shows that to mankind in general, at any rate, they are\nnot axiomatic, and that, however clear and convincing the reasons for\nthem may be, at all events those reasons require to be stated. It was\nthis determined and vigorous protest against multiplying assumptions\nand attempting to withdraw a vast mass of propositions, both\nspeculative and practical, from the control and revision of reason,\nthat, perhaps, constituted the most distinctive and valuable part of\nLocke's teaching.\n\n * * * * *\n\nHaving cleared from his path the theory of Innate Principles, Locke\nproceeds, in the Second Book, to inquire how the mind comes to be\nfurnished with its knowledge. Availing himself of a metaphor which had\nbeen commonly employed by the Stoics, but which reaches as far back\nas Aristotle and Plato, and even as \u00c6schylus, he compares the mind to\n\"white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas,\" and then asks:\n\n \"Whence comes it by that vast store, which the busy and boundless\n Fancy of Man has painted on it, with an almost endless variety?\n Whence has it all the materials of Reason and Knowledge? To this I\n answer in one word, from _Experience_: In that all our knowledge is\n founded; and from that it ultimately derives itself. Our observation\n employed either about external or sensible objects, or about the\n internal operations of our minds perceived and reflected on by our\n selves, is that which supplies our Understandings with all the\n materials of thinking. These two are the Fountains of Knowledge from\n which all the ideas we have, or can naturally have, do spring.\"\n\n \"First, our Senses, conversant about particular sensible objects,\n do convey into the mind several distinct perceptions of things,\n according to those various ways in which those objects do affect\n them. And thus we come by those ideas we have of Yellow, White,\n Heat, Cold, Soft, Hard, Bitter, Sweet, and all those which we call\n Sensible Qualities, which when I say the senses convey into the mind,\n I mean they from external objects convey into the mind what produces\n there those Perceptions. This great source of most of the Ideas we\n have, depending wholly upon our senses, and derived by them to the\n Understanding, I call SENSATION.\"\n\n \"Secondly, the other Fountain, from which Experience furnisheth\n the Understanding with Ideas, is the Perception of the operations\n of our own minds within us, as it is employed about the ideas it\n has got; which operations, when the soul comes to reflect on and\n consider, do furnish the Understanding with another set of ideas\n which could not be had from things without; and such are Perception,\n Thinking, Doubting, Believing, Reasoning, Knowing, Willing, and all\n the different actings of our own minds, which we being conscious\n of, and observing in our selves, do from these receive into our\n Understandings as distinct ideas as we do from bodies affecting\n our senses. This source of ideas every man has wholly in himself.\n And though it be not sense, as having nothing to do with external\n objects, yet it is very like it, and might properly enough be called\n Internal Sense. But as I call the other _Sensation_, so I call this\n REFLECTION, the ideas it affords being such only as the mind gets by\n reflecting on its own operations within itself. By Reflection, then,\n in the following part of this Discourse, I would be understood to\n mean that notice which the mind takes of its own operations and the\n manner of them, by reason whereof there come to be Ideas of these\n operations in the Understanding. These two, I say, namely, external\n material things, as the objects of Sensation, and the operations of\n our own minds within, as the objects of Reflection, are to me the\n only originals from whence all our ideas take their beginning. The\n term operations here I use in a large sense, as comprehending not\n barely the actions of the mind about its ideas, but some sort of\n passions arising sometimes from them, such as is the satisfaction or\n uneasiness arising from any thought.\"\n\n \"The Understanding seems to me not to have the least glimmering of\n any ideas which it doth not receive from one of these two. External\n objects furnish the mind with the ideas of sensible qualities, which\n are all those different perceptions they produce in us; and the mind\n furnishes the Understanding with ideas of its own operations.\" (Bk.\n II., ch. i., \u00a7\u00a7 2-5.)\n\nIn deriving our knowledge from two distinct sources, Sensation and\nReflection, Locke is advancing a position altogether different\nfrom that of what is properly called the Sensationalist school of\nphilosophers. Gassendi and Hobbes before him, Condillac and Helv\u00e9tius\nafter him, found the ultimate source of all our knowledge in the\nimpressions of sense. The emphatic words of Hobbes, standing in the\nforefront of the _Leviathan_, are:--\"The original of all the thoughts\nof men is that which we call Sense, for there is no conception in a\nman's mind which hath not at first, totally or by parts, been begotten\nupon the organs of sense.\" And Condillac, aiming at a theory still more\nsimple, derives from sensations not only all our knowledge but all our\nfaculties. \"The other fountain,\" then, of Locke has, we must recollect,\na peculiar significance as distinguishing his psychology from that\nof the sensationalist writers who preceded and who followed him. His\ntheory of the origin of knowledge may fairly be called an experiential,\nbut it cannot with any truth be called a sensationalist theory.\n\nThe rest of the Second Book of the _Essay_ is mainly taken up with the\nattempt to enumerate our simple ideas of Sensation and Reflection, and\nto resolve into them our other ideas, however complex. To follow Locke\ninto these details would be to re-write the _Essay_. I propose simply\nto direct the attention of the reader to a few salient points.\n\nOf \"Simple Ideas of Sensation,\" some \"come into our minds by one Sense\nonly.\" Such are the various colours, sounds, tastes, and smells, Heat\nand Cold, and the sensation of Resistance or Impenetrability, which\nLocke denominates Solidity. \"The Ideas we get by more than one sense\nare of Space or Extension, Figure, Rest, and Motion.\"\n\nThe \"Simple Ideas of Reflection,\" which the mind acquires, when \"it\nturns its view inward upon itself, and observes its own actions about\nthose ideas it has received from without,\" are mainly two, namely,\nPerception or Thinking, and Volition or Willing.\n\n\"There be other simple ideas, which convey themselves into the mind by\nall the ways of Sensation and Reflection, namely, Pleasure or Delight,\nPain or Uneasiness, Power, Existence, Unity. (Bk. II., ch. vii., \u00a7 1.)\n\n \"These simple ideas, the materials of all our knowledge, are\n suggested and furnished to the mind only by those two ways above\n mentioned, namely, Sensation and Reflection. When the Understanding\n is once stored with these simple ideas, it has the power to repeat,\n compare, and unite them, even to an almost infinite variety, and so\n can make at pleasure new complex ideas. But it is not in the power of\n the most exalted Wit or enlarged Understanding, by any quickness or\n variety of thoughts, to invent or frame one new simple idea in the\n mind, not taken in by the ways before mentioned. Nor can any force\n of the Understanding destroy those that are there: the dominion of\n man, in this little world of his own understanding, being much-what\n the same as it is in the great world of visible things, wherein his\n power, however managed by art and skill, reaches no farther than to\n compound and divide the materials that are made to his hand, but can\n do nothing towards the making the least particle of new matter or\n destroying one atom of what is already in being. The same inability\n will every one find in himself who shall go about to fashion in his\n Understanding any simple idea not received in by his senses from\n external objects or by reflection from the operations of his own mind\n about them.\" (Bk. II., ch. ii., \u00a7 2.)\n\nIn the reception of these simple ideas, Locke regards the mind as\nmerely passive. It can no more refuse to have them, alter or blot\nthem out, than a mirror can refuse to receive, alter, or obliterate\nthe images reflected on it. The Understanding, before the entrance of\nsimple ideas, is like a dark room, and external and internal sensation\nare the windows by which light is let in. But when the light has once\npenetrated into this dark recess, the Understanding has an almost\nunlimited power of modifying and transforming it. It can create complex\nideas, and that in an infinite variety, out of its simple ideas, and\nthis it does chiefly by combining, comparing, and separating them.\n\n \"This shows man's power, and its way of operation, to be much what\n the same in the material and intellectual world. For the materials in\n both being such as he has no power over, either to make or destroy,\n all that man can do is either to unite them together, or to set them\n by one another, or wholly separate them.\" (Bk. II., ch. xii., \u00a7 1.)\n\nThe complex ideas are classified under three heads, modes, which may\nbe either simple or mixed, substances, and relations. Here, however,\nmy analysis must stop, and I must content myself with giving a few\nexamples of the manner in which Locke attempts to resolve \"complex\nideas\" into \"simple\" ones.\n\nThe idea of Infinity, to take one of his most celebrated resolutions,\nis merely a simple mode of Quantity, as Immensity is a simple mode of\nSpace, and Eternity of Duration. All alike are negative ideas, arising\nwhenever we allow the mind \"an endless progression of thought,\" without\nany effort to arrest it. \"How often soever\" a man doubles an unit\nof space, be it a \"mile, or diameter of the earth, or of the _Orbis\nMagnus_,\" or any otherwise multiplies it, \"he finds that, after he has\ncontinued this doubling in his thoughts and enlarged his idea as much\nas he pleases, he has no more reason to stop, nor is one jot nearer the\nend of such addition, than he was at first setting out; the power of\nenlarging his idea of Space by farther additions remaining still the\nsame, he hence takes idea of infinite space.\" (Bk. II., ch. xvii., \u00a7 3.)\n\nWith the idea of \"Substance\" Locke is fairly baffled. If we examine our\nidea of a horse, a man, a piece of gold, &c., we are able to resolve\nit into a number of simple ideas, such as extension, figure, solidity,\nweight, colour, &., co-existing together. But, according to Locke, who,\nin this respect, was merely following in the track of the generally\nreceived philosophy of his time, there is, in addition to all these\nqualities, a _substratum_ in which they inhere, or, to use his own\nlanguage, \"wherein they do subsist, and from which they do result.\"\nNow of the various qualities we can form a clear idea and give a more\nor less intelligible account. But can we form a clear idea or give an\nintelligible account of the substratum? Locke here is bold enough to\nbreak off from the orthodox doctrine of the time, and confess candidly\nthat we cannot. The idea of this Substratum or Substance is a \"confused\nidea of something to which the qualities belong, and in which they\nsubsist.\" The name Substance denotes a Support, \"though it be certain\nwe have no clear or distinct idea of that thing we suppose a support.\"\n\n \"So that if any one will examine himself concerning his notion of\n pure Substance in general, he will find he has no other idea of it\n at all but only a supposition of he knows not what Support of such\n qualities which are capable of producing simple ideas in us; which\n qualities are commonly called Accidents. If any one should be asked\n what is the subject wherein Colour or Weight inheres, he would have\n nothing to say but the solid extended parts. And if he were demanded\n what is it that Solidity and Extension inhere in, he would not be in\n a much better case than the Indian who, saying that the world was\n supported by a great elephant, was asked what the elephant rested on?\n To which his answer was, a great tortoise. But, being again pressed\n to know what gave support to the broad-backed tortoise, replied,\n something, he knew not what. And thus here, as in all other cases,\n where we use words without having clear and distinct ideas, we talk\n like children; who, being questioned what such a thing is, which\n they know not, readily give this satisfactory answer, That it is\n something; which in truth signifies no more, when so used, either by\n children or men, but that they know not what, and that the thing they\n pretend to know and talk of is what they have no distinct idea of at\n all, and so are perfectly ignorant of it and in the dark.\" (Bk. II.,\n ch. xxiii., \u00a7 2.)\n\nNo wonder that the next step in philosophy was to get rid altogether of\nthis \"something, we know not what.\" For, if we know not what it is, how\ndo we know that it exists, and is not a mere fiction of the Schools?\nThis step was taken by Berkeley, as respects matter, and by Hume the\nsame negative criticism which Berkeley confines to matter was boldly,\nand, as it seems to me, far less successfully and legitimately extended\nto mind. Indeed, were it not for his express assurance to the contrary,\nwe should often be tempted to think that Locke himself regarded this\ndistinction of Substance and Accident, so far, at least, as it affects\nMatter and its attributes, as untenable, and was anxious to insinuate a\ndoubt as to the very existence of the \"unknown somewhat.\"\n\nIn this chapter, Locke maintains that there is no more difficulty, if\nindeed so much, in the notion of immaterial spirit as of body. \"Our\nidea of Body, as I think, is an extended solid substance, capable\nof communicating motion by impulse; and our idea of our Soul, as an\nimmaterial Spirit, is of a substance that thinks, and has a power\nof exciting motion in body by Will or Thought.\" (\u00a7 22.) Now, it is\n\"no more a contradiction that Thinking should exist separate and\nindependent from Solidity, than it is a contradiction that Solidity\nshould exist separate and independent from Thinking, they being both\nbut simple ideas independent one from another. And, having as clear\nand distinct ideas in us of Thinking as of Solidity, I know not why\nwe may not as well allow a thinking thing without solidity, that is\nimmaterial, to exist, as a solid thing without thinking, that is\nmatter, to exist; especially since it is no harder to conceive how\nThinking should exist without Matter, than how Matter should think.\" (\u00a7\n32.)\n\nIn the Fourth Book (ch. iii., \u00a7 6), however, he gave great scandal by\nsuggesting the possibility that Matter might think, that it was not\nmuch more repugnant to our conceptions that God might, if he pleased,\n\"superadd to Matter a Faculty of Thinking, than that he should superadd\nto it another substance with a faculty of thinking.\" At the same time,\nhe regarded it as no less than a contradiction to suppose that Matter,\n\"which is evidently in its own nature void of sense and thought,\"\nshould be the \"eternal first thinking Being,\" or God Himself; and, in\nhis First Letter to the Bishop of Worcester, he grants that _in us_\n(as distinguished from the lower animals) it is in the highest degree\nprobable that the \"thinking substance\" is immaterial. Materialism,\ntherefore, as ordinarily understood, is certainly no part of Locke's\nsystem.\n\nIn discussing the idea of Substance, Locke seems generally to be\nthinking more of Matter than Mind. But, in an early part of the _Essay_\n(Bk. II., ch. xiii., \u00a7 18), he very rightly begs those who talk so much\nof Substance \"to consider whether applying it, as they do, to the\ninfinite incomprehensible God, to finite Spirit, and to Body, it be\nin the same sense, and whether it stands for the same idea, when each\nof those three so different beings are called Substances.\" As applied\nrespectively to Matter and to Mind (whether finite or infinite), it\nappears to me that the word Substance assumes a very different meaning,\nand that the absurdities which it is possible to fix on the distinction\nbetween Matter and its attributes by no means extend to the distinction\nbetween Mind and its operations. For an union of certain forces or\npowers affecting our organisms in certain ways seems to exhaust our\nconception of external objects (the notion of externality, I conceive,\nbeing quite independent of that of the Substrate \"matter\"), but no\nsimilar enumeration of mental acts and feelings seems adequately to\ntake the place of that \"Self,\" or \"I,\" of which we regard these as\nmerely phases and modifications. It would much conduce to clearness\nin philosophical discussions if, at least amongst those who admit the\ndualism of matter and mind, the word Substance, whenever applied to\nincorporeal objects, were replaced by the word Mind, and, whenever\napplied to corporeal objects, by the word Matter.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Second Book closes, in the Fourth and subsequent editions, with a\nshort but very interesting Chapter on the \"Association of Ideas.\" The\nstudent of Mental Philosophy will find it instructive to compare this\nChapter with the previous account given by Hobbes (_Human Nature_, ch.\niv.; _Leviathan_, Pt. I., ch. iii.), and the subsequent account given\nby Hume (_Human Nature_, Pt. I., \u00a7 4; _Essays on Human Understanding_,\n\u00a7 3), of the same phenomena. Locke appears to have been the first\nauthor to use the exact[2] expression \"Association of Ideas,\" and it\nis curious to find in this chapter (\u00a7 5) the word \"inseparable,\" so\nfamiliar to the readers of recent works on psychology, already applied\nto designate certain kinds of association. Some ideas, indeed, have,\nhe says, a natural correspondence, but others, that \"in themselves are\nnot at all of kin,\" \"come to be so united in some men's minds that one\nno sooner at any time comes into the understanding than the whole Gang,\nalways inseparable, show themselves together.\"\n\n [2] Sir W. Hamilton refers to La Chambre (_Syst\u00e8me de l'Ame_:\n Paris, 1664) as having anticipated Locke in the use of this\n expression. In Liv. IV., ch. ii., art. 9, La Chambre speaks\n of \"l' Union et la Liaison des Images,\" but I cannot find\n that he approaches any nearer to the now established\n phraseology.\n\nThe following passage on what may be called the associations of\nantipathy affords a good instance of Locke's power of homely and\napposite illustration:\n\n \"Many children imputing the pain they endured at school to their\n books they were corrected for, so join those ideas together, that a\n book becomes their aversion, and they are never reconciled to the\n study and use of them all their lives after; and thus reading becomes\n a torment to them, which otherwise possibly they might have made the\n great pleasure of their lives. There are rooms convenient enough,\n that some men cannot study in, and fashions of vessels, which though\n never so clean and commodious, they cannot drink out of, and that by\n reason of some accidental ideas which are annexed to them and make\n them offensive. And who is there that hath not observed some man to\n flag at the appearance or in the company of some certain person not\n otherwise superior to him, but because, having once on some occasion\n got the ascendant, the idea of authority and distance goes along with\n that of the person, and he that has been thus subjected is not able\n to separate them.\"\n\nHad Locke's _Essay_ ended with the Second Book, we should hardly\nhave detected in it any incompleteness. It might have been regarded\nas an analytical work on the nature and origin of our ideas, or, in\nother words, on the elements of our knowledge. There are, however,\na third and fourth book--the former treating \"Of Words,\" the latter\n\"Of Knowledge and Opinion.\" Locke's notion appears to have been that,\nafter treating of \"Ideas,\" mainly as regarded in themselves, it was\ndesirable to consider them as combined in Judgments or Propositions,\nand to estimate the various degrees of assent which we give or ought to\ngive to such judgments, when formed. The Fourth Book thus, to a certain\nextent, takes the place, and was probably designed to take the place,\nof the Logic of the Schools. \"But,\" to quote Locke's own language in\nthe Abstract of the _Essay_, \"when I came a little nearer to consider\nthe nature and manner of human knowledge, I found it had so much to do\nwith propositions, and that words, either by custom or necessity, were\nso mixed with it, that it was impossible to discourse of knowledge with\nthat clearness we should, without saying something first of words and\nlanguage.\"\n\nThe last three Chapters of the Third Book are remarkable for their\nsound sense, and may still be read with the greatest advantage by\nall who wish to be put on their guard against the delusions produced\nby misleading or inadequate language--those \"Idola Fori\" which Bacon\ndescribes as the most troublesome of the phantoms which beset the mind\nin its search for truth. Some of the best and freshest of Locke's\nthoughts, indeed, are to be found in this book, and especially in the\nless technical parts of it.\n\nThe Fourth Book, under the head of Knowledge, treats of a great\nvariety of interesting topics: of the nature of knowledge, its\ndegrees, its extent, and reality; of the truth and certainty of\nUniversal Propositions; of the logical axioms, or laws of thought;\nof the evidence for the existence of a God; of Faith and Reason; of\nthe Degrees of Assent; of Enthusiasm; of Error. Into these attractive\nregions it is impossible that I can follow my author, but the reader\nwho wishes to see examples of Locke's strong practical sense and, at\nthe same time, to understand the popularity so soon and so constantly\naccorded to the _Essay_, should make acquaintance at least with the\nfour chapters last named.\n\n * * * * *\n\nFrom the task of description I now pass to that of criticism, though\nthis must be confined within still narrower limits than the former, and\nindeed, amongst the multiplicity of subjects which invite attention, I\nmust confine myself to one only: the account of the ultimate origin of\nour knowledge, which forms the main subject of the _Essay_.\n\nLocke, as we have seen, derived all our knowledge from Experience. But\nexperience, with him, was simply the experience of the individual.\nIn order to acquire this experience, it was indeed necessary that we\nshould have certain \"inherent faculties.\" But of these \"faculties\" he\ngives no other account than that God has \"furnished\" or \"endued\" us\nwith them. Thus, the _Deus ex machina_ was as much an acknowledged\nnecessity in the philosophy of Locke, and was, in fact, almost as\nfrequently invoked, as in that of his antagonists. Is there any\nnatural account to be given of the way in which we come to have these\n\"faculties,\" of the extraordinary facility we possess of acquiring\nsimple and forming complex ideas, is a question which he appears never\nto have put to himself. Inquiries of this kind, however, we must\nrecollect, were foreign to the men of his generation, and, in fact,\nhave only recently become a recognized branch of mental philosophy.\nHence it was that his system left so much unexplained. Not only the\nvery circumstance that we have \"inherent faculties\" at all, but the\nwide differences of natural capacity which we observe between one man\nor race and another, and the very early period at which there spring up\nin the mind such notions as those of space, time, equality, causality,\nand the like, are amongst the many difficulties which Locke's theory,\nin its bare and unqualified form, fails satisfactorily to answer. It\nwas thus comparatively easy for Kant to show that the problem of the\norigin of knowledge could not be left where Locke had left it; that\nour _\u00e0 posteriori_ experiences presuppose and are only intelligible\nthrough certain _\u00e0 priori_ perceptions and conceptions which the mind\nitself imposes upon them; or, to use more accurate language, through\ncertain _\u00e0 priori_ elements in our perceptions and conceptions, which\nthe mind contributes from itself. Thus the child appears, as soon\nas it is capable of recognizing any source of its impressions, to\nregard an object as situated in space, an event as happening in time,\ncircumstances which have occurred together as likely to occur together\nagain. But Kant's own account was defective in leaving this _\u00e0 priori_\nelement of our knowledge unexplained, or, at least, in attempting no\nexplanation of it. The mind, according to him, is possessed of certain\nForms and Categories, which shape and co-ordinate the impressions\nreceived from the external world, being as necessary to the acquisition\nof experience, as experience is necessary to eliciting them into\nconsciousness. But here his analysis ends. He does not ask how the\nmind comes to be possessed of these Forms and Categories, nor does he\nsatisfactorily determine the precise relation in which they stand to\nthe empirical elements of knowledge. When studying his philosophy,\nwe seem indeed to be once more receding to the mysterious region of\nInnate Ideas. But the mystery is removed at least several stages back,\nif we apply to the solution of these mental problems the principle\nof Heredity, which has recently been found so potent in clearing up\nmany of the difficulties connected with external nature. What are the\n\"Innate Ideas\" of the older philosophers, or the Forms and Categories\nof Kant, but certain _tendencies_ of the mind to group phenomena, the\n\"fleeting objects of sense,\" under certain relations and regard them\nunder certain aspects? And why should these tendencies be accounted\nfor in any other way than that by which we are accustomed to account\nfor the tendency of an animal or plant, belonging to any particular\nspecies, to exhibit, as it developes, the physical characteristics of\nthe species to which it belongs? The existence of the various mental\ntendencies and aptitudes, so far as the individual is concerned, is,\nin fact, to be explained by the principle of hereditary transmission.\nBut how have these tendencies and aptitudes come to be formed in the\nrace? The most scientific answer is that which, following the analogy\nof the theory now so widely admitted with respect to the physical\nstructure of animals and plants, assigns their formation to the\ncontinuous operation, through a long series of ages, of causes acting\nuniformly, or almost uniformly, in the same direction--in one word, of\nEvolution. This explanation may have its difficulties, but it is at any\nrate an attempt at a natural explanation where no other such attempt\nexists, and it has the merit of falling in with the explanations of\ncorresponding phenomena now most generally accepted amongst scientific\nmen in other departments of knowledge.\n\nAccording to this theory, there is both an _\u00e0 priori_ and an _\u00e0\nposteriori_ element in our knowledge, or, to speak more accurately,\nthere are both _\u00e0 priori_ and _\u00e0 posteriori_ conditions of our knowing,\nthe _\u00e0 posteriori_ condition being, as in all systems, individual\nexperience, the _\u00e0 priori_ condition being inherited mental aptitudes,\nwhich, as a rule, become more and more marked and persistent with\neach successive transmission. Now Locke lays stress simply upon the\n_\u00e0 posteriori_ condition, though he recognizes a certain kind of _\u00e0\npriori_ condition in our \"natural faculties,\" and the simple ideas\nfurnished by reflecting on their operations. The very important\ncondition, however, of inherited aptitudes facilitating the formation\nof certain general conceptions concurrently, or almost concurrently,\nwith the presentation of individual experiences, did not occur to him\nas an element in the solution of the problem he had undertaken to\nanswer, nor, in that stage of speculation, could it well have done\nso. His peculiar contribution to the task of solving this question\nconsisted in his skilful and popular delineation of the _\u00e0 posteriori_\nelement in knowledge, and in his masterly exposure of the insufficiency\nof the account of the _\u00e0 priori_ element, as then commonly given.\nLocke's own theory was afterwards strained by Hume and Hartley, and\nstill more by his professed followers in France, such as Condillac\nand Helv\u00e9tius, till at last, in the opinion of most competent judges,\nit snapped asunder. Then, under the massive, though often partial and\nobscure, treatment of Kant, came the rehabilitation of the _\u00e0 priori_\nside of knowledge. In recent times, mainly by aid of the light thrown\non it from other branches of inquiry, a more thorough and scientific\ntreatment of psychology has done much, as I conceive, towards\ncompleting and reconciling the two divergent theories which at one\ntime seemed hopelessly to divide the world of philosophic thinkers.\nAnd yet, as it appears to me, the ultimate mystery which surrounds\nthe beginnings of intellectual life on the globe has by no means been\nremoved.\n\nAs closely connected with this general criticism of Locke's system, or\nrather as presenting the defects just criticised under another form, I\nmay notice the tendency of the _Essay_ to bring into undue prominence\nthe passive receptivities of the Mind, and to ignore its activity and\nspontaneity. The metaphor of the _tabula rasa_, the sheet of \"white\npaper,\" once admitted, exercises a warping influence over the whole\nwork. The author is so busied with the variety of impressions from\nwithout, that he seems sometimes almost to ignore the reaction of the\nmind from within. And yet this one-sideness of Locke's conception\nof mind may easily be exaggerated. \"When the Understanding is once\nstored with simple ideas, it has the power to repeat, compare, and\nunite them, even to an almost infinite variety, and so can make at\npleasure new complex ideas.\" (Bk. II., ch. ii., \u00a7 2.) Moreover, amongst\nthe simple ideas themselves are the ideas of Reflection, \"being such\nas the mind gets by reflecting on its own operations.\" The system,\nin fact, assumes an almost ceaseless activity of mind, after the\nsimple ideas of sensation have once entered it. But where it fails\nis in not recognizing that mental reaction which is essential to the\nformation of even the simple ideas of sensation themselves, as well\nas that spontaneous activity of mind which often seems to assert\nitself independently of the application of any stimulus from without.\nHere again a more scientific psychology than was possible in Locke's\nday comes to our aid, and shows, as is done by Mr. Bain and other\nrecent writers, that the nerves, stored with energy, often discharge\nthemselves of their own accord, and that movement is at least as much\nan original factor in animal life as is sensation, while sometimes\nit even precedes it in time. Had the constant interaction of mental\nactivity and mental receptivity, producing a compound in which it\nis often almost impossible to disentangle the elements, been duly\nrecognized by Locke, it would certainly have made his philosophy less\nsimple, but it would have made it more true to facts. Physiology,\nhowever, was in his days in far too backward a state itself to throw\nmuch light upon Psychology. And the reaction against the prevailing\ndoctrine of Innate Ideas naturally led to a system in which the\ninfluences of external circumstances, of education and habit, were\nexaggerated at the expense of the native powers, or as they might more\nappropriately be called the inherited aptitudes, and the spontaneous\nactivity of the mind.\n\nHere, tempting as it is to follow my author along the many tracks of\npsychological, metaphysical, and logical discussion which he always\npursues with sagacity, candour, and good sense, if not always with the\nconsistency and profundity which we should require from later writers,\nmy criticism must necessarily end.\n\nBefore, however, finally dismissing the _Essay_, I must pause to ask\nwhat was the main work in the history of philosophy and thought which\nit accomplished. Many of its individual doctrines, doubtless, could not\nnow be defended against the attacks of hostile criticism, and some even\nof those which are true in the main, are inadequate or one-sided. But\nits excellence lies in its tone, its language, its method, its general\ndrift, its multiplicity of topics, the direction which it gave to the\nthoughts and studies of reflecting men for many generations subsequent\nto its appearance. Of the tone of candour and open-mindedness which\npervades it, of the unscholastic and agreeable form in which it is\nwritten, and of the great variety of interesting topics which it\nstarts, I have spoken already. Its method, though not absolutely new,\neven in modern times, for it is at least, to some extent, the method\nof Descartes, if not, in a smaller degree, of Hobbes and Gassendi, was\nstill not common at the time of its appearance. Instead of stating\na series of preconceived opinions, or of dogmas borrowed from some\ndominant school, in a systematic form, Locke sets to work to examine\nthe structure of his own mind, and to analyze into their elements the\nideas which he finds there. This, the _introspective_ method, as it\nhas been called, though undoubtedly imperfect, for it requires to be\nsupplemented by the study of the minds of other men, if not of the\nlower animals, as made known by their acts, and words, and history,\nis yet a great advance on the purely _\u00e0 priori_, and often fanciful,\nmethods which preceded it. Nor do we fail to find in the _Essay_ some\nemployment of that _comparative_ method to which I have just alluded:\nwitness the constant references to children and savages in the first\nbook, and the stress which is laid on the variety of moral sentiment\nexisting amongst mankind. This inductive treatment of philosophical\nproblems, mainly introspective, but in some measure also comparative,\nwhich was extremely rare in Locke's time, became almost universal\nafterwards. Closely connected with the method of the book is its\ngeneral purport. By turning the mind inwards upon itself, and \"making\nit its own object,\" Locke surmises that all its ideas come either\nfrom without or from experience of its own operations. He finds, on\nexamination and analysis, no ideas which cannot be referred to one or\nother of these two sources. The single word \"experience\" includes\nthem both, and furnishes us with a good expression for marking the\ngeneral drift of his philosophy. It was pre-eminently a philosophy of\nexperience, both in its method and in its results. It accepts nothing\non authority, no foregone conclusions, no data from other sciences.\nIt digs, as it were, into the mind, detaches the ore, analyzes it,\nand asks how the various constituents came there. The analytical and\npsychological direction thus given to philosophy by Locke was followed\nby most of the philosophical writers of the eighteenth century. However\ndivergent in other respects, Hume and Berkeley, Hartley and Reid, the\nFrench Sensationalists, Kant, all commence their investigations by\ninquiring into the constitution, the capacities, and the limits of\nthe Human Mind. Nor can any system of speculation be constructed on a\nsound basis which has neglected to dig about the foundations of human\nknowledge, to ascertain what our thoughts can and what they cannot\ncompass, and what are the varying degrees of assurance with which the\nvarious classes of propositions may be accepted by us. Two cautions,\nindeed, are necessary in applying this procedure. We must never forget\nthat the mind is constantly in contact with external nature, and that\ntherefore a constant action and reaction is taking place between them;\nand we must never omit to base our inductions on an examination of\nother minds as well as our own, bringing into the account, as far as\npossible, every type and grade of mental development.\n\nIt was not, however, only its general spirit and direction which Locke\nimpressed on the philosophy of the eighteenth century. He may almost\nbe said to have recreated that philosophy. There is hardly a single\nFrench or English writer (and we may add Kant) down to the time of\nDugald Stewart, or even of Cousin, Hamilton, and J. S. Mill, who\ndoes not profess either to develope Locke's system, or to supplement,\nor to criticise it. Followers, antagonists, and critics alike seem\nto assume on the part of the reader a knowledge of the _Essay on the\nHuman Understanding_, and to make that the starting-point of their own\nspeculations. The office which Bacon assigns to himself with reference\nto knowledge generally might well have been claimed by Locke with\nreference to the science of mind. Both of them did far more than merely\nplay the part of a herald, but of both alike it was emphatically true\nthat they \"rang the bell to call the other wits together.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nLOCKE'S OPINIONS ON RELIGION AND MORALS, AND HIS THEOLOGICAL WRITINGS.\n\n\nIn the _Essay on the Human Understanding_, Bk. IV., ch. x., Locke\nattempts to prove the existence of a God, which, though God has given\nus no innate idea of Himself, he regards as \"the most obvious truth\nthat reason discerns,\" and as resting on evidence equal to mathematical\ncertainty. Morality is, he maintains, entirely based upon the Will\nof God. If there were no God, there would, for him, be no morality,\nand this is the reason of his denying to Atheists the protection of\nthe State. In the chapter on the Existence of God he says expressly\nthat this truth is so fundamental that \"all genuine morality depends\nthereon,\" and almost at the beginning of the _Essay_ (Bk. I., ch. iii.,\n\u00a7 6), while acknowledging that \"several moral rules may receive from\nmankind a very general approbation, without either knowing or admitting\nthe true ground of morality,\" he maintains that such true ground \"can\nonly be the Will and Law of a God, who sees men in the dark, has in his\nhand rewards and punishments, and power enough to call to account the\nproudest offender.\" Again, \"the Rule prescribed by God is the true and\nonly measure of Virtue.\" But how are we to ascertain this rule? \"God\nhas by an inseparable connexion joined Virtue and Public Happiness\ntogether,\" and hence we have only to ascertain, by the use of the\nnatural reason, what on the whole conduces most to the public welfare,\nin order to know the Divine Will. The rules, when arrived at, have a\n\"moral and eternal obligation,\" and are enforced by fear of \"the Hell\nGod has ordained for the punishment of those that transgress them.\"\n\nThis form of Utilitarianism, resting on a theological basis and\nenforced by theological sanctions, is precisely that which afterwards\nbecame so popular and excited so much attention, when adopted in\nthe well-known work of Paley. According to this system, we do what\nis right simply because God commands it, and because He will punish\nus if we disobey His orders. \"By the fault is the rod, and with the\ntransgression a fire ready to punish it.\" But, notwithstanding the\ndivine origin and the divine sanction of morality, its measure and test\nare purely human. Each man is required by the Law of God to do all\nthe good and prevent all the evil that he can, and, as good and evil\nare resolved into pleasure and pain, the ultimate test of virtue or\nmoral conduct comes to be its conduciveness to promote the pleasures\nand avert the pains of mankind. Bentham, whose ethical system, it may\nbe noticed, differed mainly from that of Locke and Paley by not being\nbased on a theological foundation, extends the scope of morality to all\nsentient creatures, capable of pleasure and pain.\n\nI shall not here criticise Locke's theory so far as it is common to\nother utilitarian systems of ethics, but shall simply content myself\nwith pointing out that its influence on subsequent writers has seldom,\nif ever, been sufficiently recognized. The theological foundation,\nhowever, on which it rests, and which is peculiar among the more\nprominent moralists of modern times to Locke and Paley, is open to an\nobjection so grave and obvious, that it is curious it did not occur\nto the authors themselves. If what is right and wrong, good and evil,\ndepends solely on the Will of God, how can we speak of God Himself as\ngood? Goodness, as one of the Divine attributes, would then simply mean\nthe conformity of God to His own Will. An elder contemporary of Locke,\nRalph Cudworth, so clearly saw the difficulties and contradictions\ninvolved in this view of the nature and origin of morality, that he\ndevotes a considerable portion of his _Treatise concerning Eternal and\nImmutable Morality_ (which, however, was not published till 1731) to\nits refutation. And, possibly, Locke himself may have been conscious of\nsome inconsistency between this theory (the ordinary one amongst the\nvulgar, though a comparatively rare one amongst philosophers) and the\nattribution of goodness to God. For, in his chapter on our knowledge\nof the existence of God, he never expressly mentions the attribute of\ngoodness as pertaining to the Divine Nature, though in other parts\nof the _Essay_ it must be acknowledged that he incidentally does so.\nMoralists and philosophical theologians have generally escaped the\ndifficulties of Locke's theory by making right or moral goodness depend\nnot on the Will but on the Nature of God, or else by regarding it as an\nultimate fact, incapable of explanation, or, lastly, by resolving it\ninto the idea of happiness or pleasure, which itself is then regarded\nas an ultimate fact in the constitution of sentient beings.\n\nTwo other characteristic doctrines of Locke's ethical system ought\nhere to be mentioned, though it is impossible, within the space at my\ncommand, to discuss them. One is that morality is a science capable of\ndemonstration. The other, which is elaborately set out in the chapter\non Power in the _Essay_ (Bk. II., ch. xxi.), is that, though the Agent\nis free to act as he wills, the Will itself is invariably determined\nby motives. This solution of the well-worn controversy on the Freedom\nof the Will is almost identical with that offered by Hobbes before and\nby Hume afterwards, and is usually known as Determinism.\n\nWe have seen that the main sanctions of morality, with Locke, are the\nrewards and punishments of a future state. But how are we assured of\nfuture existence? Only by Revelation. \"Good and wise men,\" indeed,\n\"have always been willing to believe that the soul was immortal;\"\nbut \"though the Light of Nature gave some obscure glimmering, some\nuncertain hopes of a future state, yet Human Reason could attain to\nno clearness, no certainty about it, but it was Jesus Christ alone\nwho brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.\" (Third\nLetter to the Bp. of Worcester.) But if the main sanctions of morality\nare those of a future state, and if it is Christians alone who feel\nanything approaching to an assurance of such a state, surely morality\nmust come with somewhat weak credentials to the rest of mankind. And\nLocke doubtless believed this to be the case. But then, if this be\nso, Christians ought to be prepared to tolerate a much lower morality\nthan their own in dealing with men of other faiths--one of the many\ninconvenient consequences which result from founding morality on a\ntheological basis.\n\n * * * * *\n\nUnder the head of Locke's theological writings may be included\nthe _Treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity_ with the two\n_Vindications_ of it--the _Essays on Toleration_, and the _Commentaries\non some of the Epistles of St. Paul_. _The Reasonableness of\nChristianity_ was published in 1695, and may be taken as expressing\nLocke's most matured opinions on the questions of which it treats,\nthough, in reading it, we must always bear in mind the caution and\nreticence which any writer of that time who diverged from the strict\npath of orthodoxy was obliged to observe. There can be no doubt\nthat his object in this work was to commend what he regarded as the\nfundamental truths of Christianity to the attention of reflecting men,\nand to vindicate to the Christian religion what he conceived to be its\nlegitimate influence over mankind. But, in trying to effect this his\nmain object, he seems also to have wished to correct what he regarded\nas certain popular errors, and to bring back Christianity to the norm\nof the Scriptures, instead of implicitly following the Fathers, the\nCouncils, and the received theology of the Churches and the Schools. He\nattempted, he tells us, to clear his mind of all preconceived notions,\nand, following the lead of the Scriptures, of which he assumed the\ninfallibility, to see whither they would lead him. We may certainly\ntrust his own assertion that he had no thoughts of writing in the\ninterest of any particular party, though, at the same time, it was\nevidently his aim to extract from the Scriptures a theory as much as\npossible in accordance with the requirements of human reason, or, in\nother words, to reconcile the divine light with the natural light of\nman. The main results at which he arrived may be stated very briefly,\nas follows. Adam had been created immortal, but, by falling from the\nstate of perfect obedience, \"he lost paradise, wherein was tranquillity\nand the tree of life; that is, he lost bliss and immortality.\" \"In Adam\nall die,\" and hence all his descendants are mortal. But this sentence\nis to be taken in its literal sense, and not in the signification that\n\"every one descended of him deserves endless torment in hell-fire.\"\nFor it seems \"a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the\nplainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal\nlife in misery.\" Much less can death be interpreted as a necessity of\ncontinual sinning. \"Can the righteous God be supposed, as a punishment\nof our sin, wherewith He is displeased, to put man under the necessity\nof sinning continually, and so multiplying the provocation?\" Here it\nwill be seen Locke strikes at the root of the doctrines of the taint\nand guilt of original sin, doctrines which had long been stoutly\nopposed by the Arminians or Remonstrants with whom he had associated\nin Holland. But though it would have been an injustice to condemn men,\nfor the fault of another, to a state of misery \"worse than non-being,\"\nit was no wrong to deprive them of that to which they had no right,\nthe exceptional condition of immortality. Adam's sin, then, subjected\nall men to death. But in Christ they have again been made alive, and\n\"the life which Jesus Christ restores to all men is that life which\nthey receive again at the resurrection.\" Now the conditions of our\nobtaining this gift are faith and repentance. But repentance implies\nthe doing works meet for repentance; that is to say, leading a good\nlife. And faith implies a belief not only in the one invisible,\neternal, omnipotent God, but also in Jesus as the Messiah, who was\nborn of a virgin, rose again from the grave, and ascended into heaven.\nWhen Christ came on earth, the minds of men had become so far blinded\nby sense and lust and superstition that it required some visible and\nunmistakable assertion of God's majesty and goodness to bring them back\nto true notions of Him and of the Divine Law which He had set them.\n\"Reason, speaking ever so clearly to the wise and virtuous, had never\nauthority enough to prevail on the multitude.\" For the multitude were\nunder the dominion of the priests, and the \"priests everywhere, to\nsecure their empire, had excluded reason from having anything to do\nin religion.\" \"In this state of darkness and error, in reference to\nthe 'true God,' our Saviour found the world. But the clear revelation\nhe brought with him dissipated this darkness, made the 'one invisible\ntrue God' known to the world; and that with such evidence and energy,\nthat polytheism and idolatry have nowhere been able to withstand it.\"\nAnd, as he revealed to mankind a clear knowledge of the one true God,\nso also he revealed to them a clear knowledge of their duty, which was\nequally wanting.\n\n \"Natural religion, in its full extent, was nowhere that I know taken\n care of by the force of natural reason. It should seem, by the little\n that has hitherto been done in it, that it is too hard a task for\n unassisted reason to establish morality in all its parts, upon its\n true foundation, with a clear and convincing light. And it is at\n least a surer and shorter way to the apprehensions of the vulgar and\n mass of mankind, that one manifestly sent from God, and coming with\n visible authority from him, should, as a king and law-maker, tell\n them their duties and require their obedience, than leave it to the\n long and sometimes intricate deductions of reason to be made out\n to them. Such trains of reasoning the greater part of mankind have\n neither leisure to weigh, nor, for want of education and use, skill\n to judge of.... You may as soon hope to have all the day-labourers\n and tradesmen, the spinsters and dairy-maids, perfect mathematicians,\n as to have them perfect in ethics this way. Hearing plain commands is\n the sure and only course to bring them to obedience and practice. The\n greater part cannot learn, and therefore they must believe.\"\n\nIt is true that reason quickly apprehends and approves of these truths,\nwhen once delivered, but \"native and original truth is not so easily\nwrought out of the mine as we, who have it delivered already dug and\nfashioned into our hands, are apt to imagine;\" moreover, \"experience\nshows that the knowledge of morality by mere natural light (how\nagreeable soever it be to it) makes but a slow progress, and little\nadvance in the world.\"\n\nThe evidence of Christ's mission is to be found in the miracles, the\noccurrence and the divine origin of which Locke, both here and in the\npaper on Miracles published among his Posthumous Works, appears to have\nthought it impossible to gainsay. \"The miracles he did were so ordered\nby the divine providence and wisdom, that they never were nor could be\ndenied by any of the enemies or opposers of Christianity.\" And \"this\nplain matter of fact being granted, the truth of our Saviour's doctrine\nand mission unavoidably follows.\" But once acknowledge the truth of\nChrist's mission, and the rule of life is evident. \"To one who is once\npersuaded that Jesus Christ was sent by God to be a King, and a Saviour\nof those who do believe in him, all his commands become principles;\nthere needs no other proof for the truth of what he says, but that he\nsaid it. And then there needs no more, but to read the inspired books,\nto be instructed; all the duties of morality lie there clear, and\nplain, and easy to be understood.\"\n\nThis, then, is Locke's scheme of a plain and reasonable Christianity.\n\"These are articles that the labouring and illiterate man may\ncomprehend. This is a religion suited to vulgar capacities, and the\nstate of mankind in this world, destined to labour and travail.\" \"The\nwriters and wranglers in religion,\" indeed, \"fill it with niceties, and\ndress it up with notions, which they make necessary and fundamental\nparts of it, as if there were no way into the church but through the\nacademy or lyceum;\" but the religion which he had enunciated was,\nLocke conceived, the religion of Christ and the Apostles, of the New\nTestament and of Common-Sense.\n\nThat Locke, though he had no respect for the dogmas of the Church,\nnever seriously questioned the supernatural birth of Christ, the\nreality of the Christian miracles, or the infallibility of the\nScriptures, is abundantly evident. On the last point his testimony\nis quite as emphatic as on the former two. In the _Reasonableness\nof Christianity_, speaking of the writers of the Epistles, he\nsays:--\"These holy writers, inspired from above, writ nothing but\ntruth.\" And, to the same effect, in his Second Reply to Stillingfleet,\nhe writes:--\"My lord, I read the revelation of the holy scripture with\na full assurance that all it delivers is true.\" The word \"infallible\"\nis applied, without any misgiving or qualification, to the contents of\nScripture, though he assumes to each individual believer full liberty\nof interpretation. During his residence in Holland, as we have already\nseen, he appears to have entertained some doubts on this subject, but,\nat a later period, those doubts appear to have been finally laid.\n\nNotwithstanding, however, the sincerity and simplicity of Locke's\nreligious faith, the doctrines which he maintained must have\nrepresented but a very attenuated Christianity to the partisans of\nthe two great religious parties which were at that time nominally\nthe strongest in England. A Christianity which did not recognize the\nhereditary taint of original sin, and which passed over the mystery of\nthe Atonement in silence, must have been as distasteful to one party\nas a Christianity which ignored Church authority and the exclusive\nprivileges of the apostolical succession must have been to the other.\nAnd to the zealots of both parties alike, a statement of doctrine which\nwas silent on the mystery of the Trinity, or rather which seemed to\nimply that the Son, though miraculously conceived, was not co-equal or\nco-eternal with the Father, and which, by implication, appeared to\nsuggest that, though the righteous would be endowed with immortality,\nthe torments of the wicked would have an end, might well seem not\nto deserve the name of Christianity at all. We need feel no wonder,\nthen, that the appearance of Locke's work was followed by a bitter\ntheological controversy which lasted during the rest of his life, and\nbeyond it. Of these attacks upon him, and his _Vindications_, I have\nspoken in a previous chapter.\n\nWhether Locke's presentation of Christianity is really more\n\"reasonable\" than the ancient and venerable creeds which it attempted\nto replace, is a question which might be debated now with fully as\nmuch vigour as in his own day. On the one hand, it might be maintained\nthat a religion which has no mysteries, which has been pared down\nto the requirements of human reason, has ceased to be a religion\naltogether. That which is behind the veil can only be partially\nrevealed in our present condition and to our present faculties. Now\nwe know, and can know, only in part. On the other hand, it might be\nsaid that the \"reason\" is quite as much offended by the doctrines\nwhich Locke retained as by those which he rejected. It is necessary,\nhowever, to recollect, in estimating his position, that the theological\ndifficulties of his age were moral and metaphysical rather than\nscientific and critical. The moral consciousness of many reflecting men\nwas shocked by doctrines like those of original sin, predestination,\nthe atonement, and everlasting punishment. Nor could they reconcile to\ntheir reason the seeming contradictions of the doctrine of a Triune\nGod. But the study of nature had not advanced sufficiently far, or\nbeen sufficiently widely spread, to make the idea of supernatural\nintervention in the ordinary course of affairs, such as is constantly\npresented to us in the Biblical history, any serious or general\nstumbling-block. Much less had the criticism of the Sacred Text, or\nthe comparison of it with the sacred books of other religions, become\nsufficiently common, or been carried out with sufficient rigour, to\ndisturb, to any great extent, the received opinion that the Bible was\nliterally, or, at least, substantially, the Word of God. Hence the\n_via media_ on which Locke took his stand, though it might have been\nimpossible to a philosopher of the next generation, seemed reasonable\nand natural enough to speculative men among his contemporaries. And\nfor him it had at least this advantage, that it enabled him honestly\nto reconcile the conclusions of his philosophy with the singular piety\nand devoutness of his disposition. Had his religious doubts proceeded\nfurther than they did, there would probably have ensued a mental\nstruggle which, besides causing him much personal unhappiness, might\nhave deprived posterity of the more important of his works.\n\n * * * * *\n\nOf _The Letters on Toleration_, though deeply interesting to the\ngeneration in which they were written, a very brief account will here\nsuffice. Their main thesis is, that the jurisdiction of the civil\nmagistrate does not extend to the regulation of religious worship or\nto controlling the expression of religious beliefs, except so far as\nthat worship or those beliefs may interfere with the ends of civil\ngovernment. The respective provinces of a commonwealth and a church\nare strictly defined, and are shown to be perfectly distinct. \"The\nboundaries on both sides are fixed and immovable. He jumbles heaven\nand earth together, the things most remote and opposite, who mixes\nthese societies, which are in their original, end, business, and in\neverything, perfectly distinct and infinitely different from each\nother.\" But it may be asked, are there no speculative opinions, no\ntenets, actual or possible, of any religious community which should be\nrestrained by the Civil Magistrate? The answer is, yes,--\n\n \"First, No opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral\n rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society, are\n to be tolerated by the magistrate.\"\n\nSecondly, after speaking of those who maintain such positions as that\n\"faith is not to be kept with heretics,\" that \"kings excommunicated\nforfeit their crowns and kingdoms,\" that \"dominion is founded in\ngrace,\" he proceeds:\n\n \"These, therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful,\n religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto themselves,\n any peculiar privilege or power above other mortals in civil\n concernments, or who, upon pretence of religion, do challenge any\n manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in\n their ecclesiastical communion: I say these have no right to be\n tolerated by the magistrate, as neither those that will not own and\n teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For\n what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may,\n and are ready upon any occasion to seize the government, and possess\n themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow-subjects, and\n that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrates so long\n until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?\"\n\n \"Thirdly, That church can have no right to be tolerated by the\n magistrate, which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those\n who enter upon it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to\n the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the\n magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction\n in his own country, and suffer his own people to be listed, as it\n were, for soldiers against his own government.\"\n\n \"Lastly, Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of\n God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human\n society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God,\n though but even in thought, dissolves all.\"\n\nThe practical result of Locke's exceptions, at the time at which he\nwrote, would have been to exclude from toleration Roman Catholics,\nAtheists, and perhaps certain sects of Antinomians. Roman Catholics,\nhowever, would not have been excluded on the ground of their belief\nin Transubstantiation, as was actually the case, but because of those\ntenets which, in Locke's judgment, made them bad or impossible subjects.\n\nLocke was not by any means the first of English writers who had\nadvocated a wide toleration in religion. Bacon, in his remarkable\n_Essay on Unity in Religion_, had laid down, in passing, a position\nwhich is almost identical with that developed at length in the _Letters\non Toleration_. During the Civil Wars, the Independents, as a body, had\nbeen led on by their theories of Church Government and of individual\ninspiration to maintain, on principle, and accord, in practice, a\nlarge measure of religious toleration. Amongst divines of the Church\nof England, Hales of Eton, Chillingworth, and Jeremy Taylor, had\nhonourably distinguished themselves above the mass of their brethren\nby expressly advocating, or unmistakably suggesting, the same humane\ndoctrines. The practical conclusions at which Taylor arrives, in his\nnoble work on the _Liberty of Prophesying_, bear a close resemblance\nto those of Locke's _Letters on Toleration_, while the theoretical\nconsiderations on which he mainly founds them, namely, the difficulty\nof discovering religious truth, and the small number of theological\npropositions of which we can entertain anything like certainty, might\nbe regarded as anticipating, to no small extent, some of the views\nexpressed in the _Reasonableness of Christianity_. Locke's attention\nhad been turned to these questions at an early period of his life\nby the religious dissensions which accompanied the Civil Wars, and,\nduring the years immediately preceding the publication of the first\n_Letter on Toleration_, his interest in them must have been sustained\nnot only by the events which were then happening in England, but by\nthe common topics of conversation amongst his Arminian or Remonstrant\nfriends in Holland. The peculiarities of their position and the\ntendencies of their doctrines had, at an early date, forced on the\nDutch Remonstrants, just as on the English Independents, the necessity\nof claiming and defending a wide toleration. What, perhaps, mainly\ndistinguishes Locke's pamphlets is their thorough outspokenness, the\npolitical rather than the theological character of the argument,\nand the fact that they are expressly dedicated to the subject of\nToleration, instead of treating of it incidentally.\n\nThe sharp line of demarcation which Locke draws between the respective\nprovinces of civil and religious communities seems to lead logically\nto the inexpediency of maintaining a state establishment of religion.\nThe independence which he claims for all religious societies would be\ninconsistent with the control which the State always has exercised, and\nalways must exercise, in the affairs of any spiritual body on which it\nconfers special privileges. This conclusion, we can hardly doubt, he\nwould have readily accepted. As far back as 1669, he had objected to\none of the articles in the \"Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina,\"\nproviding for the establishment and endowment of the Church of England\nin that colony. Even at the present day, men who adopt the most liberal\nand tolerant opinions on religious questions are divided as to the\nexpediency or inexpediency of recognizing a State-Church; but those\nwho embrace the latter alternative may, perhaps, fairly claim Locke as\nhaving been on their side.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe system contained in the _Reasonableness of Christianity_ had been\nconstructed solely on an examination of the Gospels and the Acts\nof the Apostles. In addition to the difficulties of interpretation\nattaching to the Epistles, Locke had urged that \"they were writ to\nthem who were in the faith and true Christians already, and so could\nnot be designed to teach them the fundamental articles and points\nnecessary to salvation.\" But to one who accepted the divine inspiration\nand infallibility of all parts of Scripture, it was essential to\nestablish the consistency and coherence of the whole. Accordingly, in\nthe later years of his life, Locke set himself the task of explaining\nthe Epistles. This work seems to have been undertaken more for his own\nsatisfaction and that of Lady Masham and his more immediate friends,\nthan with any distinct design of publication. Nor did his commentaries\nsee the light till after his death.\n\nThe commentatorial work accomplished by Locke consists of paraphrases\nand notes on the Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, and\nEphesians, together with _An Essay for the understanding of St. Paul's\nEpistles by consulting St. Paul himself_.\n\nIt is needless to remark that these commentaries are distinguished by\nsound, clear sense, and by a manifest spirit of candour and fairness.\nThey are often quoted with approbation by commentators of the last\ncentury. But in the present more advanced state of grammatical and\nhistorical criticism, they are likely to remain, as they now are, the\nleast consulted of all his works.\n\nThe method, object, and drift of all Locke's theological writings is\nthe same. Regardless of ecclesiastical tradition, but assuming the\ninfallibility of the Scriptures, he attempts to arrive at the true and\nessential import of God's Revelation to man. His theoretical conclusion\nis that the articles of saving faith are few and simple, and the\npractical application of that conclusion is that, not only within the\nample fold of Christianity, but even without it, all men, whose conduct\nis consistent with the maintenance of civil society, should be the\nobjects of our goodwill and charity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE THOUGHTS ON EDUCATION AND THE CONDUCT OF THE UNDERSTANDING.\n\n\nLocke's tractate on Education, though some of the maxims are reiterated\nwith needless prolixity, abounds in shrewdness and common-sense. Taking\nas the object of education the production of \"a sound mind in a sound\nbody,\" he begins with the \"case,\" the \"clay-cottage,\" and considers\nfirst the health of the body. Of the diet prescribed, dry bread and\nsmall beer form a large proportion. Locke is a great believer in the\nvirtues of cold water. Coddling, in all its forms, was to be repressed\nwith a strong hand. My young master was to be much in the open air, he\nwas to play in the wind and the sun without a hat, his clothes were\nnot to be too warm, and his bed was to be hard and made in different\nfashions, that he might not in after-life feel every little change,\nwhen there was no maid \"to lay all things in print, and tuck him in\nwarm.\"\n\nIn the cultivation of the mind, far more importance is attached to\nthe formation of virtuous habits, and even of those social qualities\nwhich go by the name of \"good breeding,\" than to the mere inculcation\nof knowledge. \"I place Virtue as the first and most necessary of those\nendowments that belong to a Man or a Gentleman; as absolutely requisite\nto make him valued and beloved by others, acceptable or tolerable to\nhimself.\" Wisdom, that is to say, \"a man's managing his business ably,\nand with foresight, in this world,\" comes next in order. In the third\nplace is Good Breeding, the breaches of which may be all avoided by\n\"observing this one rule, Not to think meanly of ourselves, and not to\nthink meanly of others.\" Learning, though \"this may seem strange in\nthe mouth of a bookish man,\" he puts last. \"When I consider what ado\nis made about a little Latin and Greek, how many years are spent in\nit, and what a noise and business it makes to no purpose, I can hardly\nforbear thinking that the parents of children still live in fear of the\nSchoolmaster's Rod.\" \"Seek out some body that may know how discreetly\nto frame your child's manners: place him in hands where you may, as\nmuch as possible, secure his innocence, cherish and nurse up the good,\nand gently correct and weed out any bad inclinations, and settle in\nhim good habits. This is the main point, and, this being provided for,\nLearning may be had into the bargain, and that, as I think\" (a very\ncommon delusion among the educational reformers of Locke's time), \"at a\nvery easy rate, by methods that may be thought on.\"\n\nThese being Locke's ideas as to the relative value of the objects to be\naimed at in education, we need feel little surprise at the disfavour\nwith which he viewed the system of the English Public Schools.\n\n \"Till you can find a School wherein it is possible for the Master\n to look after the manners of his scholars, and can show as great\n efforts of his care of forming their minds to virtue and their\n carriage to good breeding as of forming their tongues to the learned\n languages, you must confess that you have a strange value for words\n when, preferring the languages of the ancient Greeks and Romans to\n that which made 'em such brave men, you think it worth while to\n hazard your son's innocence and virtue for a little Greek and Latin.\n How any one's being put into a mixed herd of unruly boys, and there\n learning to wrangle at Trap or rook at Span-Farthing fits him for\n civil conversation or business, I do not see. And what qualities are\n ordinarily to be got from such a troop of Play-fellows as Schools\n usually assemble together from parents of all kinds, that a father\n should so much covet, is hard to divine. I am sure he who is able\n to be at the charge of a Tutor at home may there give his son a\n more genteel carriage, more manly thoughts, and a sense of what is\n worthy and becoming, with a greater proficiency in Learning into the\n bargain, and ripen him up sooner into a man, than any at School can\n do.\"\n\nThe battle of private and public education has been waged more or less\nfiercely ever since Locke's time, as it was waged long before, and,\nalthough it has now been generally decided in favour of the Schools,\nmany of his arguments have even yet not lost their force.\n\nNot only in the interest of morality, character, and manners did Locke\ndisapprove the Public School system of his day. He also thought it\nessentially defective in its subjects and modes of instruction. The\nsubjects taught were almost exclusively the Latin and Greek languages,\nthough at Locke's own school of Westminster the upper forms were also\ninitiated into Hebrew and Arabic. This linguistic training, though\nof course it included translations from the classical authors, was\nto a large extent carried on by means of verse-making, theme-making,\nrepetition, and grammar lessons. Against all these modes of teaching\nLocke is peculiarly severe. Grammar, indeed, he would have taught, but\nnot till the pupil is sufficiently conversant with the language to be\nable to speak it with tolerable fluency. Its proper place is as an\nintroduction to Rhetoric. \"I know not why any one should waste his time\nand beat his head about the Latin Grammar, who does not intend to be\na critic, or make speeches and write despatches in it.... If his use\nof it be only to understand some books writ in it, without a critical\nknowledge of the tongue itself, reading alone will attain this end,\nwithout charging the mind with the multiplied rules and intricacies\nof Grammar.\" But without a knowledge of some rules of grammar, which\nneed not, however, be taught in an abstract and separate form, but may\nbe learnt gradually in the course of reading, writing, and speaking,\nhow would it be possible to attain to any precise understanding of the\nauthors read? The fault of the old system, which even still lingers on\nin school instruction, consisted not so much in teaching grammatical\nrules, as in teaching them apart from the writings which exemplify\nthem, and which alone can render them intelligible or interesting to a\nbeginner.\n\nThe practice of filling up a large part of a boy's time with making\nLatin themes and verses meets with still more scathing censure than\nthat of initiating him into the learned languages by means of abstract\nrules of grammar, and we may well imagine the cordial assent with which\nmany of Locke's readers, smarting under a sense of the time they had in\nthis way lost at school, would receive his criticisms.\n\n \"For do but consider what it is in making a Theme that a young lad\n is employed about; it is to make a speech on some Latin saying, as\n _Omnia vincit amor_, or _Non licet in bello bis peccare_, &c. And\n here the poor lad, who wants knowledge of those things he is to speak\n of, which is to be had only from time and observation, must set his\n invention on the rack to say something where he knows nothing; which\n is a sort of Egyptian tyranny to bid them make bricks who have not\n yet any of the materials.... In the next place consider the Language\n that their Themes are made in. 'Tis Latin, a language foreign in\n their country, and long since dead everywhere: a language which\n your son, 'tis a thousand to one, shall never have an occasion once\n to make a speech in as long as he lives after he comes to be a man;\n and a language wherein the manner of expressing one's self is so far\n different from ours that to be perfect in that would very little\n improve the purity and facility of his English style.\"\n\n \"If these may be any reasons against children's making Latin Themes\n at school, I have much more to say, and of more weight, against their\n making verses; verses of any sort. For if he has no genius to poetry,\n 'tis the most unreasonable thing in the world to torment a child\n and waste his time about that which can never succeed; and if he\n have a poetic vein, 'tis to me the strangest thing in the world that\n the father should desire or suffer it to be cherished or improved.\n Methinks the parents should labour to have it stifled and suppressed\n as much as may be; and I know not what reason a father can have to\n wish his son a poet, who does not desire to have him bid defiance\n to all other callings and business. Which is not yet the worst of\n the case; for if he proves a successful rhymer, and get once the\n reputation of a Wit, I desire it may be considered what company and\n places he is likely to spend his time in, nay, and estate too. For it\n is very seldom seen that any one discovers mines of gold or silver in\n Parnassus. 'Tis a pleasant air, but a barren soil; and there are very\n few instances of those who have added to their patrimony by anything\n they have reaped from thence. Poetry and Gaming, which usually go\n together, are alike in this too, that they seldom bring any advantage\n but to those who have nothing else to live on.\"\n\nRepetition, as it is called, or \"learning by heart great parcels of\nthe authors which are taught,\" is unreservedly condemned as being\nof \"no use at all, unless it be to baulk young lads in the way to\nlearning languages, which, in my opinion, should be made as easy and\npleasant as may be.\" \"Languages are to be learned only by reading\nand talking, and not by scraps of authors got by heart; which when\na man's head is stuffed with, he has got the just furniture of a\npedant, than which there is nothing less becoming a gentleman.\" This\nunqualified condemnation of the practice of committing to memory the\nchoicer pieces of classical authors, whether in the ancient or modern\nlanguages, would hardly be adopted by the educational reformers of our\nown day. To tax the memory of a child or a boy with long strings of\nwords, ill understood or not understood at all, is about as cruel and\nsenseless a practice as can well be conceived. It is one of the strange\ndevices, invented by perverse pedagogues and tolerated by ignorant\nparents, through which literature and all that is connected with books\nhas been made so repulsive to many generations of young Englishmen.\nBut if the tastes and interests of the pupil are skilfully consulted,\nand the understanding is called into action as well as the memory, a\nstore of well-selected passages learnt by rote will not only do much to\nfamiliarize him with the genius of the language, but will also supply\nconstant solace and occupation in those moments of depression and\nvacuity which are only too sure to occur in every man's life.\n\nLocke, like Milton (see Milton's Pamphlet on Education addressed to\nMaster Samuel Hartlib, and cp. Pattison's _Life of Milton_, published\nin this series, pp. 42-46), had embraced the new gospel of education\naccording to Comenius, and supposed that, by new methods, not only\nmight the road to knowledge be rendered very short and easy, but almost\nall the subjects worth learning might be taught in the few years spent\nat School and College. The whole of Milton's \"complete and generous\neducation\" was to be \"done between twelve and one-and-twenty.\" And\nsimilarly Locke thinks that \"at the same time that a child is learning\nFrench and Latin, he may also be entered in Arithmetic, Geography,\nChronology, History, and Geometry too. For if these be taught him in\nFrench or Latin, when he begins once to understand either of these\ntongues, he will get a knowledge in these sciences and the language\nto boot.\" To these subjects are afterwards added Astronomy, Ethics,\nCivil and Common Law, Natural Philosophy, and almost all the then known\nbranches of human knowledge, though, curiously enough, Greek is omitted\nas not being, like Latin and French, essential to the education of\na gentleman, and being, moreover, easy of acquisition, \"if he has a\nmind to carry his studies farther,\" in after-life. Concurrently with\nthese intellectual pursuits, the model young gentleman is to graduate\nin dancing, fencing, wrestling, riding, besides (and on this addition\nto his accomplishments the utmost stress is laid) \"learning a trade,\na manual trade, nay, two or three, but one more particularly.\" And\nall this programme apparently was to be filled up before the age of\none-and-twenty, for at that time Locke assumes that, notwithstanding\nall reasons and remonstrances to the contrary, my young master's\nparents will insist on marrying him, and \"the young gentleman being\ngot within view of matrimony, 'tis time to leave him to his mistress.\"\nThis idea of an education embracing the whole field of human knowledge\nand accomplishments is a vision so attractive, that it would be strange\nindeed if it did not from time to time present itself to the enthusiast\nand the reformer. But wherever the experiment has been tried on boys\nor youths of average strength and ability, the vision has invariably\nbeen dissipated. And, as the circle of human knowledge is constantly\nwidening, whereas the capacity to learn remains much the same from\ngeneration to generation, the failure is inevitable.\n\nAny account of Locke's views on Education, however meagre, would be\nvery imperfect, if it neglected to notice the motives to obedience\nand proficiency which be proposed to substitute for what was then too\noften the one and only motive on which the Schoolmaster relied, fear\nof the rod. Corporal chastisement should be reserved, he thought, for\nthe offence of wilful and obstinate disobedience. In all other cases,\nappeal should be made to the pupil's natural desire of employment and\nknowledge, to example acting through his propensity to imitation, to\nreasoning, to the sense of shame and the love of commendation and\nreputation. Many of Locke's suggestions for bringing these motives\neffectually to bear are very ingenious, and the whole of this part of\nthe discussion is as creditable to his humanity as to his knowledge of\nhuman nature.\n\nThere is a large literature on the theory of education, from the Book\nof Proverbs and the _Republic_ of Plato downwards. It is no part of my\ntask even to mention the principal writers in this field. But, besides\nsome of the works of Comenius, the Essay of Montaigne _De l'institution\ndes enfants_, and the tractate of Milton already referred to, we may\nalmost take for granted that Locke had read the _Schoolmaster_ of\nRoger Ascham. This author, who was instructor to Queen Elizabeth, is\nalready sufficiently independent of scholastic traditions to think\nthat \"children are sooner allured by love, than driven by beating, to\nattain good learning,\" and to suggest that \"there is no such whetstone\nto sharpen a good wit, and encourage a will to learning, as is praise.\"\nHe protests almost as strongly as Locke against the senseless mode,\nthen and long afterwards prevalent, of teaching grammar merely by means\nof abstract rules, and proposes, as in part substitute, the method\nof double translation, that is, of translating from the foreign or\ndead language into English, and then back again. Of the many works on\neducation subsequent to Locke's, the most famous is, undoubtedly, the\n_Emile_ of Rousseau. On Rousseau's theories there can be no question\nthat Locke, mediately or immediately, exercised considerable influence,\nthough the range of speculation covered in the _Emile_ far exceeds that\nof the _Thoughts concerning Education_. Of the points common to the two\nwriters, I may specify the extension of the term \"education\" to the\nregulations of the nursery, the substitution of an appeal to the tender\nand the social affections for the harsh discipline mostly in vogue\namong our ancestors, the stress laid on the importance of example and\nhabituation in place of the mere inculcation of rules, and, as a point\nof detail, the desirableness of learning one or more manual trades. One\ncircumstance, however, as Mr. Morley has pointed out, distinguishes the\n_Emile_ from all the works on education which preceded it. Its scope\nis not confined to the children of well-to-do people, and hence its\nobject is to produce, not the scholar and the gentleman, but the man.\nThe democratic extension thus given to educational theories has since\nborne fruit in many schemes designed for general applicability, or,\nspecifically, for the education of the poor, such as those of Basedow,\nPestalozzi, and, among our own countrymen, Dr. Bell.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn connexion with the _Thoughts on Education_, it may be convenient to\nnotice the short treatise on the _Conduct of the Understanding_. It\nis true that it was designed as an additional chapter to the _Essay_,\nbut the main theme of which it treats is connected rather with the\nwork of self-education than with the analysis of knowledge, or the\nclassification of the faculties. This admirable little volume, which\nmay be read through in three or four hours, appears to have been\nintended by Locke as at least a partial substitute for the ordinary\nlogic. As in matters of conduct, so in the things of the intellect, he\nthought little of rules. It was only by practice and habituation that\nmen could become either virtuous or wise. But, though it is perfectly\ntrue that rules are of little use without practice, it is not easy\nto see how habit can be successfully initiated or fostered without\nthe assistance of rules; and inadequate as were the rules of the old\nscholastic logic to remedy the \"natural defects in the understanding,\"\nthey required rather to be supplemented than replaced. The views of\nBacon on this subject, much as they have been misunderstood, are juster\nthan those of Locke.\n\nRight reasoning, Locke thought (and this is nearly the whole truth,\nthough not altogether so), is to be gained from studying good models\nof it. In the _Thoughts on Education_, he says, \"If you would have\nyour son reason well, let him read Chillingworth.\" In this treatise,\nwith the same view he commends the study of Mathematics, \"Not that I\nthink it necessary that all men should be deep mathematicians, but\nthat, having got the way of reasoning which that study necessarily\nbrings the mind to, they might be able to transfer it to other parts\nof knowledge, as they shall have occasion.\" The great difference to be\nobserved in demonstrative and in probable reasoning is that, in the\nformer one train of reasoning, \"bringing the mind to the source on\nwhich it bottoms,\" is sufficient, whereas \"in probabilities it is not\nenough to trace one argument to its source, and observe its strength\nand weakness, but all the arguments, after having been so examined on\nboth sides, must be laid in balance one against another, and, upon the\nwhole, the understanding determine its assent.\"\n\nThe great defect of this tractate (but its brevity makes the defect\nof less importance) is its singular want of method. In fact, it\nappears never to have undergone revision. The author seems to throw\ntogether his remarks and precepts without any attempt at order, and\nhe never misses any opportunity of repeating his attacks on what he\nevidently regarded as being, in his own time, the main hindrances to\nthe acquisition of a sound understanding--prejudice and pedantry. But\nin justness of observation, incisiveness of language, and profound\nacquaintance with the workings of the human mind, there are many\npassages which will bear comparison with anything he has written.\nSpecially worthy of notice is the homely and forcible character of many\nof his expressions, as when he speaks of a \"large, sound, roundabout\nsense,\" of \"men without any industry or acquisition of their own,\ninheriting local truths,\" of great readers \"making their understanding\nonly the warehouse of other men's lumber,\" of the ruling passion\nentering the mind, like \"the sheriff of the place, with all the posse,\nas if it had a legal right to be alone considered there.\"\n\nExcept for the inveterate and growing custom of confining works\nemployed in education to such as can be easily lectured on and easily\nexamined in, it is difficult to understand why this \"student's guide,\"\nso brief, and abounding in such valuable cautions and suggestions,\nshould have so nearly fallen into desuetude.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nWORKS ON GOVERNMENT, TRADE, AND FINANCE.\n\n\nLocke's two _Treatises of Government_ (published in 1690) carry us back\ninto the region of worn-out controversies. The troublous times which\nintervened between the outbreak of the Civil War and the Revolution of\n1688, including some years on either side, naturally called forth a\nlarge amount of controversy and controversial literature on the rights\nof kings and subjects, on the origin of government, on the point at\nwhich, if any, rebellion is justifiable, and other kindred topics. Not\nonly did the press teem with pamphlets on these subjects, but, for\nthree-quarters of a century, they were constantly being discussed and\nre-discussed with a dreary monotony in Parliament, in the pulpits, in\nthe courts of law, and in the intercourse of private society. It is\nno part of my plan to give any account of these disputes, except so\nfar as they bear immediately on the publication of Locke's treatises.\nIt is enough, therefore, to state that the despotic and absolutist\nside in the controversy had been, or was supposed to have been,\nconsiderably re-inforced by the appearance in 1680 of a posthumous\nwork, which had been circulated only in manuscript during its author's\nlifetime, entitled _Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings_, by Sir\nRobert Filmer. This curious book (a more correct edition of which was\npublished by Edmund Bohun in 1685) grounds the rights of kings on the\npatriarchal authority of Adam and his successors. Adam had received\ndirectly from God (such was the theory) absolute dominion over Eve and\nall his children and their posterity, to the most remote generations.\nThis dominion, which rested on two independent grounds, paternity\nand right of property, was transmitted by Adam to his heirs, and is\nat once the justification of the various sovereignties now exercised\nby kings over their subjects, and a reason against any limitation of\ntheir authority or any questioning of their titles. By what ingenious\ncontrivances the two links of the chain--Adam and the several monarchs\nnow actually reigning on the earth--are brought together, those curious\nin such speculations may find by duly consulting the pages of Sir\nRobert Filmer's work.\n\nSuch a tissue of contradictions, assumptions, and absurdities as is\npresented by this book (which, however, contains one grain of truth,\nnamely, that all political power has, historically, its ultimate origin\nin the dominion exercised by the head of the family or tribe) might\nhave been left, one would think, without any serious answer. But we\nmust recollect that at that time theological arguments were introduced\ninto all the provinces of thought, and that any reason, which by any\nsupposition could be connected with the authority of Scripture, was\ncertain to exercise considerable influence over a vast number of minds.\nAny way, the book was celebrated and influential enough to merit, in\nLocke's judgment, a detailed answer. This answer was given in due form,\nstep by step, in the former of Locke's two _Treatises_, which appears\nto have been written between 1680 and 1685, as the Edition of the\n_Patriarcha_ quoted is invariably that of 1680. I do not propose to\nfollow him through his various arguments and criticisms, many of which,\nas will readily be supposed, are acute and sagacious enough. Most\nmodern readers will be of opinion that one of his questions might alone\nhave sufficed to spare him any further concern, namely, Where is Adam's\nheir now to be found? If he could be shown, and his title indubitably\nproved, the subsequent question of his rights and prerogatives might\nthen, perhaps, be profitably discussed.\n\nOf incomparably more importance and interest than the former treatise\nis the latter, in which Locke sets forth his own theory concerning \"the\ntrue original, extent, and end of Civil Government.\" Mr. Fox Bourne\nis probably correct in referring the date of the composition of this\ntreatise to the time immediately preceding and concurrent with the\nEnglish Revolution, that is to say, to the closing period of Locke's\nstay in Holland. The work, especially in the later chapters, bears\nthe marks of passion, as if written in the midst of a great political\nstruggle, and, in the Preface to the two _Treatises_, it is distinctly\nstated to be the author's object \"to establish the throne of our great\nrestorer, our present King William, and to justify to the world the\npeople of England, whose love of their just and natural rights saved\nthe nation when it was on the very brink of slavery and ruin.\"\n\nThe theories advanced by Locke on the origin and nature of civil\nsociety have much in common with those of Puffendorf and Hooker, the\nlatter of whom is constantly quoted in the foot-notes. After some\npreliminary speculations on the \"state of nature,\" he determines that\nPolitical Society originates solely in the individual consents of those\nwho constitute it. This consent, however, may be signified either\nexpressly or tacitly, and the tacit consent \"reaches as far as the\nvery being of any one within the territories of that government.\"\n\nThough no man need enter a political society against his will, yet\nwhen, by consent given either expressly or tacitly, he has entered it,\nhe must submit to the form of government established by the majority.\nThere is, however, one form of government which it is not competent\neven to the majority to establish, and that is Absolute Monarchy,\nthis being \"inconsistent with civil society, and so being no form\nof government at all.\" Locke ridicules the idea that men would ever\nvoluntarily have erected over themselves such an authority, \"as if,\nwhen men quitting the state of nature entered into society, they agreed\nthat all of them but one should be under the restraint of laws, but\nthat he should still retain all the liberty of the state of nature,\nincreased with power and made licentious by impunity. This is to think\nthat men are so foolish, that they take care to avoid what mischiefs\nmay be done them by pole-cats or foxes, but are content, nay, think it\nsafety, to be devoured by lions.\" In these and some of the following\nstrictures, he seems to have in view not only the ruder theories of\nFilmer and the absolutist divines, but also the more philosophical\nsystem of Hobbes.\n\nBut, supposing a government other than an Absolute Monarchy to have\nbeen established, are there any acts or omissions by which it can\nforfeit the allegiance of its subjects? To answer this question, we\nmust look to the ends of political society and government. Now the\ngreat and chief end which men propose to themselves, when they unite\ninto commonwealths, is \"the mutual preservation of their lives,\nliberties, and estates, which I call by the general name, property.\"\nA government, therefore, which neglects to secure this end, and still\nmore a government which itself invades the rights of its subjects,\nis guilty of a breach of trust, and consequently may be lawfully set\naside, whenever an opportunity occurs. Hence the community itself must\nalways be regarded as the supreme authority, in abeyance, indeed, while\nits fiduciary properly and faithfully executes the powers entrusted to\nhim, but ever ready to intervene when he misuses or betrays the trust\nreposed in him.\n\nOn such a theory, it may be objected, of the relations of the people to\nthe government, what is to prevent incessant disturbance and repeated\nrevolutions? Locke relies on the inertia of mankind. Moreover, as he\nsays, with considerable truth, in a previous passage, whatever theories\nmay be propounded, or whatever traditions may have been handed down, as\nto the origin, nature, and extent of government, a people, which knows\nitself to be rendered miserable by the faults of its rulers and which\nsees any chance of bettering its condition, will not be deterred from\nattempting to throw off a yoke which has become intolerable. \"When the\npeople are made miserable, and find themselves exposed to the ill-usage\nof arbitrary power, cry up their governors, as much as you will, for\nsons of Jupiter; let them be sacred and divine, descended or authorized\nfrom heaven; give them out for whom or what you please, the same will\nhappen. The people generally ill-treated, and contrary to right, will\nbe ready upon any occasion to ease themselves of a burden that sits\nheavy upon them.\"\n\nBut, though there is much truth in this last remark, there can be\nlittle question that absolutist theories of government, especially\nwhen clothed with a religious sanction which appeals to the beliefs\nof the people at large, have much influence in protecting the person\nof an absolute ruler, as well as in ensuring the execution of his\norders; while, on the other hand, theories like those of Locke have\na tendency to encourage criticism, and to weaken many of the motives\nwhich have usually prevented men from offering resistance to the\nestablished government. The practical consequences of Locke's theories,\nas reproduced and improved on by later writers, would probably be\nfound, if we could trace them, to be represented, in no inconsiderable\ndegree, in the French and American revolutions which occurred about\na century after the publication of the Treatises. Nor have his\nspeculations been without their share, probably, in determining much of\nthe political history and still more of the political sentiment of our\nown country. To maintain that kings have a divine right to misgovern\ntheir subjects, or to deny that the people are, in the last resort,\nthe supreme arbiters of the fate of their rulers, are paradoxes which,\nto Englishmen of our generation, would appear not so much dangerous\nas foolish. This altered state of sentiment, and the good fruit it\nhas borne in the improved relations between the Legislature and the\nPeople, the Crown and the Parliament, may, without undue partiality, be\nascribed, at least in some measure, to the generous spirit of liberty\nwhich warms our author's pages, and to the Whig tradition which so long\ncherished his doctrines, till at last they became the common heritage\nof the English people.\n\nAdmirable, however, as, in most respects, are the parts of Locke's\ntreatise which discuss the present relations of governors and governed,\nhis conception of the remote origin of political society is radically\nfalse. \"The first framers of the government,\" \"the original frame of\nthe government\" (ch. xiii.), have never had any existence except in\nthe minds of jurists and publicists. In the primitive stages of human\ndevelopment, governments, like languages, are not made; they grow.\nThe observation of primitive communities still existing, combined\nwith the more intelligent study of ancient history, has led recent\nwriters to adopt a wholly different view of the _origin_ of government\n(the question of the respective _rights_ of governors and governed\nis not affected) from that which prevailed in the times of Hobbes,\nLocke, and Rousseau. The family or the tribe (according to different\ntheories) is the original unit of society. Government, therefore, of\nsome kind or other must always have existed, and the \"state of nature\"\nis a mere fiction. In course of time, the family or the tribe, by a\nnatural process of development, would, in many cases, become greatly\nenlarged, or combine with other units like itself. Out of this growth\nor aggregation would arise, in most cases gradually and insensibly,\nthe nation or state as known to later history. The constitution, the\n\"frame of government,\" has generally passed through stages similar to\nthose passed through by the state or nation. A body of custom must\ngradually have grown up even in the most primitive societies. The\n\"customs\" would be interpreted and so administered by the house-father\nor head of the tribe. But, as the family or tribe changed its abode,\nor had to carry on its existence under different circumstances, or\nbecame enlarged, or combined with other families or tribes, the customs\nwould necessarily be modified, often insensibly and unconsciously.\nMoreover, the house-father or head of the tribe might be compelled\nor might find it expedient to act in concert with others, either as\nequals or subordinates, in interpreting the customs, in taking measures\nof defence, in directing military operations, or in providing for\nthe various exigencies of the common life. Here there is no formal\nassent of the governed to the acts of the governors, in our sense of\nthose terms, though, undoubtedly, the whole family or tribe, or its\nstronger members, might on rare occasions substitute one head for\nanother; no passage from the \"state of nature\" to political society;\nno definitely constituted \"frame of government.\" At a further stage,\nno doubt, political constitutions were discussed and framed, but this\nstage was long posterior to the period in the progress of society at\nwhich men are supposed to have quitted the state of nature, selected\ntheir form of government, and entered into an express contract with\none another to obey and maintain it. The fault of Locke, like that\nof the other political speculators of the seventeenth and eighteenth\ncenturies, consisted in assuming that primitive man was impelled by the\nsame motives, and acted in the same manner and with the same deliberate\ndesign, as the men of his own generation. As in morals and psychology,\nso in politics, the historical and comparative methods, so familiar to\nrecent investigators, were as yet hardly known.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI ought not to dismiss this book without noticing Locke's remarks on\nthe necessity of Parliamentary Reform. \"To what gross absurdities the\nfollowing of custom, when reason has left it, may lead, we may be\nsatisfied when we see the bare name of a town, of which there remains\nnot so much as the ruins, where scarce so much housing as a sheepcote\nor more inhabitants than a shepherd is to be found, sends as many\nrepresentatives to the grand assembly of law-makers as a whole county\nnumerous in people and powerful in riches.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe writings of Locke on Trade and Finance are chiefly interesting\nto us on account of the place which they occupy in the History of\nPolitical Economy. They consist of three tracts, the occasions and\nconsequences of which have already been described. The main positions\nwhich he endeavours to establish are three. First, interest, or the\nprice of the hire of money, cannot, ordinarily speaking, be regulated\nby law, and, if it could so be regulated, its reduction below the\nnatural or market rate would be injurious to the interests of the\npublic. Secondly, as silver and gold are commodities not differing\nintrinsically in their nature from other commodities, it is impossible\nby arbitrary acts of the Government to raise the value of silver and\ngold coins. You may, indeed, enjoin by Act of Parliament that sixpence\nshall henceforth be called a shilling, but, all the same, it will only\ncontinue to purchase six-penny-worth of goods. You will soon find\nthat the new shilling is only as effective in the market as the old\nsixpence, and hence, if the Government has taken the difference, it has\nsimply robbed its subjects to that amount. The third position, which\nhe only maintains incidentally in discussing the other two, is that\nthe commercial prosperity of a country is to be measured by the excess\nof its exports over its imports, or, as the phrase then went, by the\nbalance of trade. The two former of these propositions are simple,\nbut long-disputed, economical truths. The latter is an obstinate and\nspecious economical fallacy.\n\nTo understand Locke's contention on the first point, it must be\nborne in mind that in his time, and down even to the middle of the\npresent reign, the maximum rate of interest allowable in all ordinary\ntransactions was fixed by law. By the statute 12 Car. II. (passed in\n1660) it had been reduced from eight to six per cent. Sir Josiah Child,\nwhose _Observations concerning Trade_ had been reprinted in 1690, and\nwho probably represented a very large amount of mercantile opinion,\nadvocated its further reduction to four per cent. He maintained,\nquoting the example of Holland, that low interest is the cause of\nnational wealth, and that, consequently, to lower the legal rate of\ninterest would be to take a speedy and simple method of making the\ncountry richer. Against this proposal Locke argued that the example of\nHolland was entirely beside the question; that the low rate of interest\nin that country was owing to the abundance of ready money which it had\nformerly enjoyed, and not to any legal restrictions; nay, in the States\nthere was no law limiting the rate of interest at all, every one being\nfree to hire out his money for anything he could get for it, and the\ncourts enforcing the bargain. But, further, suppose the proposed law to\nbe enacted; what would be the consequences? It would be certain to be\nevaded, while, at the same time, it would hamper trade, by increasing\nthe difficulty of borrowing and lending. Rather than lend at a low rate\nof interest, many men would hoard, and, consequently, much of the money\nwhich would otherwise find its way into trade would be intercepted,\nand the commerce of the country be proportionately lessened. Excellent\nas most of these arguments are, Locke unfortunately stopped short of\nthe legitimate conclusion to be drawn from them. He did not propose,\nas he should have done, to sweep away the usury laws altogether, but\nsimply to maintain the existing law fixing the maximum of interest at\nsix per cent. Sir Dudley North, in his admirable pamphlet, _Discourses\non Trade_, published in 1691, just before the publication of the\n_Considerations_, but too late, perhaps, to have been seen by Locke,\ntakes a much more consistent view as to the expediency of legal\nrestrictions on the rate of interest. \"As touching interest of money,\nhe is clear that it should be left freely to the market, and not be\nrestrained by law.\" Notwithstanding the opposition of men like North\nand Locke, to whom may be added an earlier writer, Sir William Petty,\nthe arguments of Child partially triumphed in the next reign. By the\n12th of Anne, the legal rate of interest was reduced to five per cent.,\nand so continued till the Act of 1854, repealing, with regard to all\nfuture transactions, the existing Usury Laws. There can be little doubt\nthat public opinion had been prepared for this measure mainly through\nthe publication of Bentham's powerful _Defence of Usury_, the telling\narguments of which had gradually impressed themselves on the minds of\nstatesmen and economists. Adam Smith, on the other hand, had stopped\njust where Locke did. \"The legal rate of interest, though it ought\nto be somewhat above, ought not to be much above the lowest market\nrate.\" That the rate of interest, whatever it may be, should be fixed\nby law, he appears to take for granted. Indeed, he seems to write more\nconfidently on this point than Locke had done, and, in this particular\nat least, appears to be of opinion that the legislator can look after\nthe private interests of individuals better than they can look after\ntheir own. Happily, as Bentham points out, the refutation of this\nparadox was to be found in the general drift and spirit of his work.\n\n * * * * *\n\nOn the second question, \"raising the value of money,\" Locke's views\nare much clearer and more consistent than on the first. It would\nbe impossible to state more explicitly than he has done the sound\neconomical dictum that gold and silver are simply commodities, not\ndiffering essentially from other commodities, and that the government\nstamp upon them, whereby they become coin, cannot materially raise\ntheir value. As most of my readers are aware, it has been a favourite\ndevice, time out of mind, of unprincipled and impecunious governments\nto raise the denomination of the coin, or to put a smaller quantity of\nthe precious metals in coins retaining the old denomination, with the\nview of recruiting an impoverished exchequer. There have, doubtless,\nbeen financiers unintelligent enough to suppose that this expedient\nmight enrich the government, while it did no harm to the people. But it\nrequires only a slight amount of reflection to see that all creditors\nare defrauded exactly in the same proportion as that in which the\ncoin is debased. One lucid passage from Locke's answer to Lowndes may\nsuffice to show the forcible manner in which he presents this truth:\n\n \"Raising of coin is but a specious word to deceive the unwary. It\n only gives the usual denomination of a greater quantity of silver to\n a less (_v. g._, calling four grains of silver a penny to-day, when\n five grains of silver made a penny yesterday), but adds no worth\n or real value to the silver coin, to make amends for its want of\n silver. That is impossible to be done. For it is only the quantity\n of silver in it that is, and eternally will be, the measure of its\n value. One may as rationally hope to lengthen a foot, by dividing it\n into fifteen parts instead of twelve and calling them inches, as to\n increase the value of silver that is in a shilling, by dividing it\n into fifteen parts instead of twelve and calling them pence. This is\n all that is done when a shilling is raised from twelve to fifteen\n pence.\"\n\nLowndes had maintained that \"raising the coin,\" in addition to\nmaking up the loss caused by calling in the clipped money, and other\nadvantages, would increase the circulating medium of the country, and\nso put a stop to the multiplication of hazardous paper-credit and the\ninconveniences of bartering. Nothing could be better than Locke's\nreply:\n\n \"Just as the boy cut his leather into five quarters (as he called\n them) to cover his ball, when cut into four quarters it fell short,\n but, after all his pains, as much of his ball lay bare as before;\n if the quantity of coined silver employed in England fall short,\n the arbitrary denomination of a greater number of pence given to\n it, or, which is all one, to the several coined pieces of it, will\n not make it commensurate to the size of our trade or the greatness\n of our occasions. This is as certain as that, if the quantity of a\n board which is to stop a leak of a ship fifteen inches square, be but\n twelve inches square, it will not be made to do it by being measured\n by a foot that is divided into fifteen inches, instead of twelve, and\n so having a larger tale or number of inches in denomination given to\n it.\"\n\nThe general principle that to depreciate the coinage is to rob the\ncreditor, and that, though you may change the name, you cannot change\nthe thing, was quite as emphatically stated by Petty and North as by\nLocke. But the value of Locke's tracts consisted in their amplitude of\nargument and illustration, which left to the unprejudiced reader no\nalternative but to accept their conclusion. As he himself said in a\nletter to Molyneux, \"Lay by the arbitrary names of pence and shillings,\nand consider and speak of it as grains and ounces of silver, and 'tis\nas easy as telling of twenty.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nLocke had the penetration to see that the laws existing in his time\nagainst the exportation of gold and silver coin must necessarily be\nfutile, and, while it was permitted to export bullion, could answer no\nconceivable purpose. These laws, which date from the time of Edward\nthe Third, were, curiously enough, not repealed till the year 1819,\nthough as early as the time of the Restoration they had been pronounced\nby so competent a judge as Sir William Petty to be \"nugatory\" and\n\"impracticable.\" Nothing, as Locke says towards the conclusion of his\nanswer to Lowndes, could prevent the exportation of silver and gold\nin payment of debts contracted beyond the seas, and it could \"be no\nodds to England whether it was carried out in specie or when melted\ndown into bullion.\" But the principle on which the prohibition of\nexporting gold and silver coin ultimately rested seems to have been\naccepted by him as unhesitatingly as it was by almost all the other\neconomists of the time. That principle was that the wealth of a nation\nis to be measured by the amount of gold and silver in its possession,\nthis amount depending on the ratio of the value of the exports to\nthat of the imports. When the value of the exports exceeded that of\nthe imports, the Balance of Trade, as it was called, was said to be\nin favour of a country; when, on the other hand, the value of the\nimports exceeded that of the exports, the Balance of Trade was said to\nbe against it. A favourable balance, it was assumed, must necessarily\nincrease the amount of gold and silver in the country, while an\nunfavourable balance must necessarily diminish it. And, lastly, the\namount of gold and silver in its possession was the measure of a\nnation's wealth. These views form part of what political economists\ncall the Mercantile Theory, which it was the peculiar glory of Adam\nSmith to demolish.\n\nIt is somewhat humiliating to the biographer of Locke to be obliged to\nconfess that, in this respect, his theories on trade lag considerably\nbehind those of an almost contemporary writer, Sir Dudley North, whose\nwork has already been mentioned. Some of North's maxims are worthy of\nAdam Smith, and one wonders that, when once enunciated, they found so\nlittle currency, and were so completely ignored in both the literature\nand the legislation of the time. Here are a few, but the whole tract\nmay be read in less than an hour: \"The whole world, as to trade, is but\nas one nation or people, and therein nations are as persons.\" \"The loss\nof a trade with one nation is not that only, separately considered,\nbut so much of the trade of the world rescinded and lost, for all is\ncombined together.\" \"No laws can set prices in trade, the rates of\nwhich must and will make themselves; but, when such laws do happen\nto lay any hold, it is so much impediment to trade, and therefore\nprejudicial.\" \"No man is richer for having his estate all in money,\nplate, &c., lying by him, but, on the contrary, he is for that reason\nthe poorer. That man is richest whose estate is in a growing condition,\neither in land at farm, money at interest, or goods in trade.\" \"Money\nexported in trade is an increase to the wealth of the nation; but spent\nin war and payments abroad, is so much impoverishment.\" \"We may labour\nto hedge in the Cuckoo, but in vain; for no people ever yet grew rich\nby policies, but it is peace, industry, and freedom that brings trade\nand wealth, and nothing else.\"\n\nSome of Locke's opinions on trade and finance were undoubtedly\nerroneous, and it must be confessed that the little tract of Sir Dudley\nNorth supplies a better summary of sound economical doctrine than any\nwhich we can find in his writings; but then this brochure is merely a\nsummary, with little of argument or elucidation, and perhaps it would\nbe difficult to point to any previous or contemporary writer whose\nworks are, on the whole, more important in the history of economical\nscience than those of Locke.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nLOCKE'S INFLUENCE ON THOUGHT.\n\n\nTo trace Locke's influence on subsequent speculation would be to write\nthe History of Philosophy from his time to our own. In England, France,\nand Germany there have been few writers on strictly philosophical\nquestions in this century or the last who have not either quoted\nLocke's _Essay_ with approbation, or at least paid him the homage of\nstating their grounds for dissenting from it. In the last century,\nhis other works, especially those on Government and Toleration, may\nbe said to have almost formed the recognized code of liberal opinion\nin this country, besides exercising a considerable influence on the\nrapidly developing speculations which, in the middle of the century,\nwere preparing an intellectual no less than a social revolution in\nFrance. I can here only speak of the nature of Locke's influence, and\nof the directions it took, in the very broadest outline, and it is the\nless necessary that I should enter into detail, as I have frequently\nadverted to it in the preceding chapters.\n\nIn England, the _Essay_, though from the first it had its ardent\nadmirers, seemed, for some years after its appearance, to have produced\nits effect on English philosophical literature mainly by antagonism.\nMany were the critics who attacked the \"new way of ideas,\" and\nattempted to show the evil consequences to morals, religion, and exact\nthought which must follow from the acceptance of Locke's speculations.\nHere and there he was defended, but the attack certainly largely\noutnumbered the defence. Of these controversies I have already given\nsome account in the chapters on Locke's Life, and need not, therefore,\nnow recur to them. The first English writer on philosophy of the\nhighest rank who succeeded Locke was Berkeley, and on him the influence\nof his predecessor is so distinctly apparent, that it may well be\nquestioned whether Berkeley would ever have written the _Principles_\nand the _Dialogues_, if Locke had not written the _Essay_. Locke had\nregarded not \"things\" but \"ideas\" as the immediate objects of the mind\nin thinking, though he had supposed these ideas to be representative of\nthings; but why, argued Berkeley, suppose \"things\" to exist, if \"ideas\"\nare the only objects which we perceive? Again, Locke had analyzed\nthe idea of Matter conceived as \"Substance\" into \"we know not what\"\nsupport of known qualities. How, then, said Berkeley, do we know that\nit exists? The idealist philosophy of Berkeley may thus be viewed as\na development, on one side, of the philosophy of Locke. But Hume, by\ncarrying Berkeley's scepticism further than he had done himself, and by\nquestioning the reality of Substance, as applied either to matter or\nmind, may be said to have developed Locke's principles in a direction\nwhich was practically the very reverse of that taken by Berkeley.\nFor the result of Berkeley's denial of \"matter\" was to enhance the\nimportance of \"mind,\" and to re-assure men as to the existence of one\nall-embracing mind in the person of the Deity. But the result of the\nquestions which Hume raised as to the substantial existence of either\nMatter or Mind was to leave men in a state of pure scepticism, or, as\nwe should now perhaps call it, Agnosticism. On the other applications\nof Hume's method, I need not detain the reader. To the ordinary\ncommon-sense Englishman, who approached philosophical questions with\ninterest but without any special metaphysical aptitude, the systems\nboth of Hume and Berkeley appeared to be open to the fatal objection of\nparadox, and hence, throughout the eighteenth century, Locke continued,\nin ordinary estimation, to hold the supreme place among English\nphilosophers. Horace Walpole (writing in 1789) probably expresses\nthe average opinion of the English reading public of his time, when\nhe says that Locke (with whom he couples Bacon) was almost the first\nphilosopher who introduced common-sense into his writings. Nor was\nit only that he was supreme in popular estimation. His influence is\napparent in almost every philosophical and quasi-philosophical work\nof the period. It may specially be mentioned that the doctrine of\nInnate Ideas went out of fashion, both word and thing, and, when a\nsimilar doctrine came into vogue at the end of the century, under the\nauthority of Reid and Stewart, it was in a modified form and under a\nnew appellation, that of primary or fundamental beliefs. These authors\nalways spoke with the greatest respect of Locke, and Stewart especially\nwas always anxious to establish, when possible, an identity of opinion\nbetween himself and his illustrious predecessor. And even in recent\ntimes, when the topics and conditions of philosophical speculation\nhave undergone so much change, there are few philosophical authors of\neminence who do not make frequent reference to Locke's _Essay_. It\nis now perhaps seldom read through except by professed students of\nphilosophy, but it is still probably oftener \"dipped into\" than any\nother philosophical treatise in the language.\n\nIn France, the _Essay_ at first made little way. It took more than\ntwenty years to sell off the first edition of the French translation,\nbut from 1723 to 1758 editions followed one another in rapid succession\nat intervals of about six years. Voltaire says that no man had been\nless read or more abused in France than Locke. The points in his\nphilosophy which seem to have been specially selected for attack\nwere the statements that God might, if he pleased, annex thought to\nmatter, and that the natural reason could not alone assure us of the\nimmortality of the soul. The qualifications, as the custom is, were\ndropped out of these statements, and it was roundly asserted that Locke\nmaintained the soul to be material and mortal. Voltaire does not fail\nto point out the hastiness and injustice of these conclusions, and\nis himself unbounded in his admiration for the English philosopher.\nMalebranche, he says, is read on account of the agreeableness of his\nstyle, Descartes on account of the hardihood of his speculations;\nLocke is not read, because he is merely wise. There never was a\nthinker more wise, more methodical, more logical than Locke. Other\nreasoners had written a romance of the soul; Locke came and modestly\nwrote its history, developing the ideas of the human understanding\nas an accomplished anatomist explains the forces of the human body.\nVoltaire lived to see the philosophy of Locke, or rather an extreme\nphase of it, become almost the established creed of those who cared at\nall for speculative questions in France. Condillac in his early work,\nthe _Essai sur l'Origine des Connoissances Humaines_ (first published\nin 1746), simply adopts Locke's account of the origin of knowledge,\nfinding it in the two sources of Sensation and Reflection. But in his\nlater work, the _Trait\u00e9 des Sensations_, which appeared in 1754, he\nhas gone far beyond his master, and not only finds the origin of all\nknowledge in sensation alone, but of all our faculties as well. It\nis in this work that the metaphor of the gradually animated statue\noccurs. Condillac's system soon became the fashionable philosophy\nof his countrymen, and both friends and foes credited Locke with\nits parentage. With Joseph de Maistre, who may be regarded as the\nbitterest exponent of French Ultramontanism, Locke is the immediate\nlink through whom Helv\u00e9tius, Cabanis, and the other enemies of the\nhuman race in France had derived from Bacon the principles which had\nbeen so destructive to their country and mankind. But it was not the\nfollowers of Condillac only who professed to base their systems on\nthe principles of Locke. Degerando, writing in 1813, says, \"All the\nFrench philosophers of this age glory in ranging themselves among the\ndisciples of Locke, and admitting his principles.\" The great names of\nTurgot, Diderot, D'Alembert, Condorcet, and Destutt de Tracy alike\nappear in the roll of his professed disciples. And even when the\nreaction against the authority of Locke began in France, his influence\nmight still be traced in authors like Maine de Biran, Royer Collard,\nCousin, and Jouffroy, however emphatically they might repudiate his\nsystem as a whole. Lastly, Auguste Comte may be connected with Locke\nthrough Hume.\n\nExcept by way of reaction and opposition, Locke's influence has\nbeen felt much less in Germany than in either England or France.\nThe earliest opponent of his philosophy, who himself held any high\nrank as a philosopher, was Leibnitz, who, in his _Nouveaux Essais_\n(written in 1704, but not published till 1765), attacked not only\nLocke's specific conclusions, but his method of commencing the study of\nphilosophy with an examination of the human mind. Yet he recognizes\nthe _Essay_ as \"one of the most beautiful and most esteemed works of\nthis time.\" It may be remarked as curious that he is disposed to rate\nthe _Thoughts on Education_ even still higher than the _Essay_. But,\nwhen we think of Locke's relation to German philosophy, it is mainly\nin connexion with the antagonism of Kant. For, though Kant states\nthat he was \"awoke from his dogmatic slumber\" by reading Hume, it is\nplain, throughout the _Kritik_, that he has in his mind the system of\nLocke at least as much as that of his sceptical successor. And yet\nthese two great philosophers, the reformer of English and the reformer\nof German philosophy, have much in common, specially their mode of\napproaching the problems of ontology and theology, which have vexed\nso many generations of thinkers, by first inquiring into the limits,\ncapacities, and procedure of the human mind.\n\nOf the specific influence of Locke's treatises on Government, Religion,\nToleration, Education, and Finance I have already said something in\nprevious chapters. In each one of these subjects the publication of his\nviews forms a point of departure, and no writer on the history of any\none of them could dispense with a lengthened notice of his theories.\n\nBut far more important than their specific influence on other writers,\nor even on the development of the subjects with which they deal, has\nbeen the effect of Locke's writings on the history of progress and\ncivilization. In an age of excitement and prejudice, he set men the\nexample of thinking calmly and clearly. When philosophy was almost\nsynonymous with the arid discussion of scholastic subtleties, he wrote\nso as to interest statesmen and men of the world. At a time when the\nchains of dogma were far tighter, and the penalties of attempting to\nloosen them far more stringent, than it is now easy to conceive, he\nraised questions which stirred the very depths of human thought. And\nall this he did in a spirit so candid, so tolerant, so liberal, and\nso unselfish, that he seemed to be writing not for his own party or\nhis own times, but for the future of knowledge and of mankind. To\nsound every question to the bottom, never to allow our convictions to\noutstrip our evidence, to throw aside all prejudices and all interests\nin the pursuit of truth, but to hold the truth, when found, in all\ncharity and with all consideration towards those who have been less\nfortunate than we--these are the lessons which, faithfully transmitted\nthrough two centuries by those who had eyes to see and ears to hear, he\nhas bequeathed to us and our posterity.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nLATEST PUBLICATIONS\n\nFROM THE PRESS OF\n\nHARPER & BROTHERS.\n\n\n THINGS SEEN. By VICTOR HUGO. With Portrait. 16mo, Half Cloth, 75\n cents.\n\n THE BLOT IN THE 'SCUTCHEON, and Other Dramas. By ROBERT BROWNING.\n Edited, with Notes, by WILLIAM J. ROLFE, A.M., and HELOISE E.\n HERSEY. With Portrait. Square 16mo, Cloth, 56 cents; Paper, 40\n cents.\n\n ALLAN QUATERMAIN. By H. RIDER HAGGARD. Profusely Illustrated. 16mo,\n Half Cloth, 75 cents; Paper, 25 cents.\n\n HORSEMANSHIP FOR WOMEN. By THEODORE H. MEAD. Illustrated by GRAY\n PARKER. Square 8vo, Cloth, $1 25.\n\n SEBASTOPOL. By Count LEO TOLSTO\u00cf. Translated from the French by F. D.\n MILLET. With Portrait, 16mo, Cloth, 75 cents.\n\n BAR HARBOR DAYS. By Mrs. BURTON HARRISON. Illustrated, 16mo, Cloth,\n $1 25.\n\n THE STORY OF THE EARTH AND MAN. By SIR J. W. DAWSON. New and Revised\n Edition, with Illustrations. 12mo, Cloth, $1 50.\n\n KEATS. By SIDNEY COLVIN. (\"English Men of Letters\" Series.) 12mo,\n Cloth, 75 cents.\n\n FRANKLIN SQUARE SONG COLLECTION, No. 4. Two Hundred Favorite Songs\n and Hymns for Schools and Homes, Nursery and Fireside. Selected by\n J. P. MCCASKEY. pp. 184. 8vo, Paper, 50 cents; Boards, 60 cents;\n Cloth, $1 00.\n\n A HUMBLE ROMANCE, and Other Stories. By MARY S. WILKINS. pp. 440.\n 16mo, Cloth, $1 25.\n\n MANNERS AND SOCIAL USAGES. A Book of Etiquette. By Mrs. JOHN\n SHERWOOD. A New and Enlarged Edition. pp. 486. 16mo, Ornamental\n Cloth, Gilt Tops, $1 25.\n\n\nFRANKLIN SQUARE LIBRARY. (_Latest Issues._)\n\n CTS.\n JACOBI'S WIFE. A Novel. By Adeline Sergeant 20\n \"V. R.\" 15\n PRESENT POSITION OF EUROPEAN POLITICS. By Sir Charles W. Dilke. 20\n 99 DARK STREET. A Novel. By F. W. Robinson 15\n A CHOICE OF CHANCE. A Novel. By William Dodson 20\n A LOST REPUTATION. A Novel 15\n AMOR VINCIT. A Novel. By Mrs. Herbert Martin 20\n\n\nHARPER & BROTHERS _will send any of the above works by mail, postage\nprepaid, to any part of the United States or Canada, on receipt of the\nprice_.\n\n\nHARPER'S PERIODICALS.\n\n =HARPER'S MAGAZINE, One Year= =$4 00=\n =HARPER'S WEEKLY, One Year= =4 00=\n =HARPER'S BAZAR, One Year= =4 00=\n =HARPER'S YOUNG PEOPLE, One Year= =2 00=\n =HARPER'S FRANKLIN SQUARE LIBRARY, One Year, 52 Numbers= =10 00=\n\nThe Volumes of the WEEKLY and BAZAR begin with the first Number for\nJanuary, the Volumes of the YOUNG PEOPLE with the first Number for\nNovember, and the Volumes of the MAGAZINE with the Numbers for June and\nDecember of each year.\n\nSubscriptions will be commenced with the Number of each Periodical\ncurrent at the time of receipt of order, except in cases where the\nsubscriber otherwise directs.\n\n\nBOUND VOLUMES.\n\nBound Volumes of the MAGAZINE for _three years back_, each Volume\ncontaining the Numbers for Six Months, will be sent by mail, postage\nprepaid, on receipt of $3 00 per Volume in Cloth, or $5 25 in Half Calf.\n\nBound Volumes of the WEEKLY or BAZAR for _three years back_, each\ncontaining the Numbers for a year, will be sent by mail, postage\nprepaid, on receipt of $7 00 per Volume in Cloth, or $10 50 in Half\nMorocco.\n\nHARPER'S YOUNG PEOPLE for 1883, 1884, and 1885, handsomely bound in\nIlluminated Cloth, will be sent by mail, postage prepaid, on receipt of\n$3 50 per Volume.\n\n_The Bound Volumes of_ HARPER'S YOUNG PEOPLE _for 1880, 1881, 1882, and\n1886 are out of stock, and will not be reprinted_.\n\n\nADVERTISING.\n\nThe extent and character of the circulation of HARPER'S MAGAZINE,\nHARPER'S WEEKLY, HARPER'S BAZAR, and HARPER'S YOUNG PEOPLE render them\nadvantageous mediums for advertising. A limited number of suitable\nadvertisements will be inserted at the following rates:--In the\nMAGAZINE, Fourth Cover Page, $1500 00; Third Cover Page, or First Page\nof advertisement sheet, $500 00; one-half of such page when whole\npage is not taken, $300 00; one-quarter of such page when whole page\nis not taken, $150 00; an Inside Page of advertisement sheet, $250\n00; one-half of such page, $150 00; one-quarter of such page, $75\n00; smaller cards on an inside page, per line, $2 00: in the WEEKLY,\nOutside Page, $2 00 a line; Inside Pages, $1 50 a line: in the BAZAR,\n$1 00 a line: in the YOUNG PEOPLE, Cover Pages, 50 cents a line.\nAverage: eight words to a line, twelve lines to an inch. Cuts and\ndisplay charged the same rates for space occupied as solid matter.\nRemittances should be made by Post-Office Money Order or Draft, to\navoid chance of loss.\n\n\n Address: HARPER & BROTHERS,\n FRANKLIN SQUARE, NEW YORK.\n\n\n\n\n * * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nPunctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a\npredominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not\nchanged.\n\nSimple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unpaired\nquotation marks were retained.\n\nAmbiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.\n\nGreek words are shown in Greek and then in English transliterations\nthat are indicated by [Greek: ] and were added by the transcriber.\n\nThe Illustration on the title page is the Publisher's logo.\n\nPage 24: \"Any way\" was printed as \"Anyway\" but changed here for\nconsistency with how it was printed the other 8 times.\n\nPage 117: Added missing closing quotation mark after 'in the world,'.","title":"Locke","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":61498}