us disguises of vice and imposture, and in the
pitiless nakedness in which he leaves them. But there are even stronger
reasons for recalling contemporary verdicts pronounced on Earle as a man.
Hallam, in the "Literature of Europe,"[E] has a short notice of him, and
though it shews some appreciation of his ability, it contains a very
unworthy aspersion on his character. "The chapter on the sceptic," he
says, "is witty, but an insult to the honest searcher after truth, which
could only have come from one that was content to take up his own opinions
for ease or profit." If we accept all that is said of Earle's piety and
devotion, and give its proper weight to the very significant epithet
"innocent," used both by Walton and Clarendon, we shall, I think, be slow
to suspect his motive in attacking the sceptic. The honest doubter, it
must be remembered, was not the familiar--much less the
fashionable--figure he has become since, and it is very certain that Earle
described one type of sceptic both of his day and our own. That his sketch
may have done injustice to other types is likely enough; but that is no
reason for calling in question the sincerity of his opinions, or
attributing an interested orthodoxy to one whom Bunyan might have
christened Mr. Singleheart. The piety of the 17th Century was not disposed
to be gentle to sceptics. Even Bacon's enlightenment allows itself harsher
language on such subjects than any to be found in Earle. "None do refuse
to believe in a God save those for _whom it maketh that there were no
God_." And if Bacon is not thought a satisfactory witness, we have an
unimpeachable one very much nearer to our time. Dr. Johnson's occasional
strictures on sceptics are well-known, but his reputation for honest
thinking has never been impaired by their severity. Earle knew what
charity was, as the Baxter correspondence shows, and he has exposed in one
of his characters "the faith that has no room for it"; and if his own
faith needed further enlargement in the case of a sceptic,[F] some
enlargement of Hallam's charity might also have been looked for in
dealing with the earnestness of a militant piety.

The character-sketch is naturally a thing of limited scope. "Fine
portraiture,"[G] it has been said, "is not possible under such conditions
as it imposes. The traits, common to a class, cannot at the same time be
the accurate and intimate likeness of an individual. For this, a simple
enumeration of actions which