the middle of the reign of George the Second. The finest parts of Atterbury's works, and especially the two first volumes of his fermons, were, indeed, published fome years before the queen's decease. The most beautiful productions, likewise, of Addifon, (excepting his Freeholder, and his verfes to Sir Godfrey Kneller, and to the Princess of Wales,) were previous to that event. Steele, too, did not write any thing peculiarly worthy of notice, befides the Confcious Lovers, after the acceffion of George the Firft. As the claffic merit of Steele's compofitions is ia no very high estimation, he would fcarcely have been mentioned on this occafion, were he not entitled to notice on account of his having begun a new and admirable fpecies of writing in the Tatler, Spectator, and Guardian. It ought alfo to be remembered, that, though the chief excellence of thefe papers is to be afcribed to the affiftance of men whofe abilities were fuperior to his own, he has a claim to no fmall degree of praife for much of the humour that runs through the Tatler. But though the best works of Atterbury, Addison, and other writers that might be specified, may be confidered as almoft folely appropriated to Queen Anne's reign, this is not the cafe with regard to the reft of the great geniufles who are generally ranked among the diftinguished glories of that period.

If feveral of Swift's most valuable and celebrated productions were published before the acceffion of George the First, it is well known that many others of them, which are equally valuable, and equally celebrated, were pofterior to that era, and that he continued to exercife his pen for fome time during the reign of his late majefty.

The fame obfervation will more ftrongly hold good with refpect to Pope, whofe laft poetical publication, the complete edi tion of the Dunciad, did not appear 'till 1743. Even his trans lation of Homer, which Dr. Johnfon celebrates as a great event in the history of English literature, and which has fo beautifully afcertained and established the correctness and harmony of our verfification, though it was begun towards the end of Queen Anne's life, was not finished 'till feveral years after her death.

All the humourous pieces of Arbuthnot, as well as fome of his graver treatifes, were likewife written after the demife of his royal miftrefs.

With regard to Lord Bolingbroke, who is ufually claffed with Swift and Pope, if we except his letter to the Examiner, and fome little fhare he might have in the writing of the paper fo called, we know of none of his literary compofitions but what were produced in the reigns of George the Firit and George the Second,

But

But ftill it may be said, that the merit of thefe eminent authors properly belongs to the reign of Queen Anne, It was in her time that their genius was completely formed it was in her reign, or fomewhat earlier, that they began to write; and it was the fpirit they had then imbibed, which continued to operate in the fubfequent period. The glory, therefore, they have reflected on their country, was a glory of which the fucceeding princes had no right to partake.

Admitting the truth of thefe allegations, it may be proper to ftate the literary facts that more diftinctly marked the reigns of the two first sovereigns of the Hanover family. It is certain that, during that time, a confiderable revolution was produced in the minds of men; and that various objects of enquiry engaged their attention, which, if not wholly new, had not been difcuffed before to an equal extent, or with an equal degree of ac-, curacy and precifion. Nor was this entirely owing to the natu ral progrefs of reafon, and the gentle and gradual operation of literature in opening and enlarging the human faculties; but arofe, in particular, from the political fituation of Great Bri

tain.

The acceffion of another royal family, whofe claims were difapproved by a large body of the people, rendered it highly requifite to diffeminate, as widely as poible, the principles which were favourable to the recent establishment. For this purpose, it was neceflary to oppofe, with the utmoft vigour, the narrow views of the clergy, not only concerning the doctrine of paffive obedience, non-refiftance, and hereditary right, but likewife with respect to the measure, extent, and exercife of church power. Accordingly, able men were engaged in diffufing more liberal fentiments upon thefe fubjects; and, as this could not be done without exciting a warm controversy, hence a different turn was given to the ftudies of the age. The celebrated Hoadly, then bishop of Bangor, took the lead in this important bufinefs. He had distinguished himself greatly in the preceding reign, by his attachment to the cause of civil liberty, his defence of the revolution, and his zeal for the proteftant fucceffion; and he now ftill more diftinguished himself by his fermon on the nature of the kingdom or church of Chrift, in which he endeavoured to reduce ecclefiaftical authority within much narrower limits than was ufually affigned to it by the body of the clergy. Never did a fingle difcourfe excite greater attention, or give rife to a more extenfive or eager debate.

The Bangorian controverfy, both on account of the variety and ability of the publications it afforded, and the effects it produced, muft undoubtedly be confidered as a very important ob

D 2

ject

ject in the literary history of this period. The almost numberlefs tracts to which it gave rife, are, now, indeed, nearly buried in oblivion; but the influence of the difpute ftill remains. We are greatly indebted to it for the liberality of fentiment which has ever fince been fo generally prevalent; and for that moderation in the claims of church-power, to which the clergy themselves have been willing to fubmit.

It is not in the nature of the human mind, when once fet in motion, to ftop precifely at the point which may at first be thought defirable. Many who had contracted a dislike to ecclefiaftical authority, and who were difgufted with the high-churchmen for their attachment to the family of the Stuarts, pursued the blow much farther than had been done by the gentle and moderate Hoadly. The defign of that eminent prelate was only to establish what he apprehended to be the true principles of chriftian liberty; but other writers aimed to destroy all reverence and regard for the clergy.

Tindal and Toland had attempted this in Queen Anne's time; but not being very popular authors, and their characters not being held in much eftimation, they did not procure a great number of followers. The cafe, however, was different with respect to those who affumed the fame task in the reign of King George the First, They wrote with fuperior ability, and at a more favourable opportunity.

Mr. Trenchard and Mr. Gordon were men of very vigorous minds, and had an uncommon ftrength, if not elegance of compofition. The bold principles they advanced in feveral of their publications, (efpecially in the Independent Whig,) and the force with which they maintained thefe principles, had no fmall effect on the minds of great numbers, and helped to give a confiderable turn to the character of the age. The clergy endeavoured, in various writings, to counteract this effect, but not with any remarkable fuccefs. The controverfy called forth, from time to time, a multitude of authors on both fides of the queftion; and therefore it justly deferves to be mentioned as an important circumftance in the literary ftudies of that time.

The spirit of enquiry extended to the doctrines of the church, as well as to the general claims and pretenfions of the clergy. This, however, did not proceed from any hoftile defign against the establishment, but from the private fcruples of fome learned and pious divines, particularly Mr. Whifton and Dr. Clarke. Thefe gentlemen had attacked the athanafian opinion concerning the trinity in Queen Anne's reign; but it was not 'till after the acceffion of the Brunfwic line that the controverfy was fully entered into, and became widely diffufed. It employed, for many

years,

years, the abilities and literature of several of the first men, both in the church and amongst the diffenters, and had an influence in giving a change to the fentiments of the age. Many of the laity thook off their reverence for the doctrine of the trinity, and it was discarded by fome of the most eminent and worthy of the clergy. The fimplicity of the oppofite fcheme, which held out, in an intelligible manner, the unity and fupremacy of the Deity, ftruck philofophical minds, and was congenial to the understanding of a Newton. Among the diffenting divines, unitarianism had a most extenfive spread.

As the doctrine of the trinity conftituted a part of the ecclefiaftical establishment, and a folemn affent to it was legally required from the clergy of every denomination, it was impoffible to attack this doctrine without bringing forward the question concerning fubfcription to articles of human compofition in religion. The debate concerning this matter, forms another cir cumftance in the literary character of the age. It has been continued to our own time, and comprizes it in two points of enquiry; in what fenfe the doctrines of the church are to be af fented to by fuch as do fubfcribe them, and whether a fubfcription to them should not be wholly rejected. The latter fentiment has been embraced by the generality of the diffenting minifters, and some of the ableft men among them have warmly fupported this opinion. Not a few, likewife, of the established clergy, have pleaded for a relaxation of the terms of admiffion into the church and the refult of thefe difcuffions has been an enlargement of the principles of moderation and candour. . But it was not to particular doctrines of christianity, or to questions concerning ecclefiaftical authority or difcipline, that the difputes of men were confined. The truth and divine original of revelation itself became the fubject of debate. Notwithstanding the able defences of religion which Mr. Boyle's lecture had produced, a fpirit of infidelity continued to operate, and, during the reigns to which this enquiry is limited, appeared in feveral different forms. The first, and, perhaps, the most formidable attack on the chriftian fyftem, was that of Collins, upon the head of prophecy. This was followed by Tindal's Christianity as old as the Creation ;" in which he afferted the abfolute fufficiency of reason to ascertain every point of a religious nature; and the confequence hence intended to be drawn was, that revelation was totally needlefs and inexpedi

66

Then fucceeded Morgan's" Moral Philofopher;" which, under an honourable title, contained a violent invective against the characters recorded in fcripture, and was defigned to overthrow the authority of the Old and New Teftament in general.

The

The fubtle author of "Christianity not founded on Argu ment," came after Morgan. In a fhort time, Mr. Hume pro duced his Effay on Miracles," and laft of all, Bolingbroke's "Letters on Hiftory," and his "Philofophical Works," were levelled against the authenticity and credibility of the facred books, and against every part of revelation.

Thefe writings, enormous as they were, gave rife to fix different controverfies, of great importance in the prefent furvey of English literature. Thefe controverfies called forth the abilities of the ableft fcholars, and occafioned fome of the most learned and irrefutable defences of religion that were ever written.

Befides thefe fix principal controverfies, there were other collateral ones, from which arofe fome very valuable works. The particular debate, concerning the refurrection of Jefus, fhould have been added to the fubjects already fpecified, as having been a matter of the greatest importance. It was, indeed, included in fome of the reft, and especially in all the questions relative to miracles.

The grand difpute concerning revelation is indeed a great object, not merely in the ecclefiaftical, but in the literary hif tory of England. It extended through the reign of both the Georges, employed the firft men of the kingdom, and called forth the activity and exertions of the human mind. By the way, it may be obferved, that the infidelity of this period, at leaft before Mr. Hume wrote, was not of the atheistical kind. It was only deifm that prevailed; and many who were scepti cal, with regard to chriftianity, profeffed themfelves to be fin cere believers, not only in the exiftence and perfections, but in the moral providence of God, and in a future ftate of retribution. The form which infidelity has fince affumed, will be con fidered hereafter.

Befides the direct enquiries concerning the evidences of revealed religion, the controverfies on that fubject led to a variety of difcuffions relative to its peculiar doctrines, nature, and views. Hence it was that the fcriptures were very critically examined; and the refult of the examination was, that they were cleared of many things which had been erroneously supposed to belong to them.

The deliverance of chriftianity from the abfurdities which had been fathered upon it, and the rendering it better understood, must be reckoned among the moft valuable effect that refulted from the attacks of infidelity.

Whilft divines were employed in refcuing revelation from the rubbish in which it had been almost overwhelmed, the human mind was improved, and more just and rational views of truth

were