ly the fair-sounding disguise of flippant
scepticism or shallow indifference. The number of such instances made
some excuse for those who so misunderstood the Christian liberalism of
such men as Locke and Lord Somers, as to charge it with irreligion or
even atheism.

Nevertheless the growth of toleration was one of the most conspicuous
marks of the eighteenth century. If one were to judge only from the
slowness of legislation in this respect, and the grudging reluctance
with which it conceded to Nonconformists the first scanty instalments of
complete civil freedom, or from the words and conduct of a considerable
number of the clergy, or from certain fierce outbursts of mob riot
against Roman Catholics, Methodists, and Jews, it might be argued that
if toleration did indeed advance, it was but at tortoise speed. In
reality, the advance was very great. Mosheim, writing before the middle
of the century, spoke of the 'unbounded liberty' of religious thought
which existed in England. Perhaps the expression was somewhat
exaggerated. But in what previous age could it have been used at all
without evident absurdity? Dark as was the general view which Doddridge,
in his sermon on the Lisbon Earthquake, took of the sins and corruption
of the age, freedom from religious oppression he considered to be the
one most redeeming feature of it. The stern intolerant spirit, which for
ages past had prompted multitudes, even of the kindest and most humane
of men, to regard religious error as more mischievous than crime, was
not to be altogether rooted out in the course of a generation or two.
But all the most influential and characteristic thought of the
eighteenth century set full against it. In this one respect, the virtues
and vices of the day made, it might almost be said, common cause. It
might be hard to say whether its carelessness and indifference had most
to do with the general growth of toleration, or its practical common
sense, its professed veneration for sound reason, its love of sincerity.
It is more remarkable that there was so much toleration in the last
century, than that there was also so much intolerance.

A crowd of writers, of every variety of opinion, had something to write
or say on the subject of Church establishments. But until the time of
Priestley few ever disputed the advantages derivable from a National
Church. Many would have warmly agreed with Hoadly that 'an establishment
which did not allow of toleration woul