useful knowledge "than all the philosophers of the notional way since Aristotle opened his shop in Greece." Glanvill himself ventured upon a "continuation of the New Atlantis" in his essay Antifanatick Theologie, and Free Philosophy. His openness of mind and his conviction that authority and sense are our only evidence on such matters led to his belief in supernatural appearances. He thought that "the testimony of all ages" established their reality. And he distrusted the dogmatism of what he called "modern Sadducism": to him, it was a

'matter

of astonishment that men, otherwise witty and ingenious, are fallen into the conceit that there's no such thing as a witch or apparition."

Other writers of the period showed the influence of the new ideas. From the scholastic point of view, Samuel Parker, bishop of Oxford, criticised both Hobbes and Descartes, a treatise on Cartesianism having been published in England in 1675 by Antoine Legrand, of Douay, a Franciscan friar and member of the English mission. In his Court of the Gentiles (1669-77), Theophilus Gale traced all ancient learning and philosophy to the Hebrew Scriptures. John Pordage wrote a number of works, the mysticism of which was inspired by Jacob Boehme.

The treatise De legibus naturae, published in 1672, by Richard Cumberland, afterwards bishop of Peterborough, is much more than a criticism of Hobbes. It puts forward a doctrine of morality which is based upon the law of nature, and this is accompanied by a running criticism of Hobbes's views. Cumberland looks upon the law of nature as capable of being inferred from observation of physical and mental phenomena (themselves due to the will of God), and at the same time as pointing out "that possible action of a rational agent which will chiefly promote the common good." 'Good' is defined by him as "that which preserves, or enlarges and perfects, the

faculties of any one thing or of several," but he also uses the term as equivalent to happiness. And he thinks that the 'rules of life' are as plain as the 'art of numbering,' the following propositions being laid down as necessarily true: (1) "that the good of all rational beings is greater than the like good of any part of that aggregate body, that is, that it is truly the greatest good"; (2) "that in promoting the good of this whole aggregate, the good of individuals is contained and promoted"; and (3) “that the good of every particular part requires the introducing and settling of distinct property in such things, and such services of rational agents, as contribute to the common happiness." The work as a whole is heavy in style, weak in its philosophical analysis, and confused in argument. But its insistence on the social nature of man, and its doctrine of the common good as the supreme principle of morality, anticipate the direction taken by much of the ethical thought of the following century.

CHAPTER VI

JOHN LOCKE

JOHN LOCKE may be regarded as, on the whole, the most important figure in English philosophy. Others excelled him in genius; he had not the comprehensive grasp of Hobbes, or the speculative originality of Berkeley, or the subtlety of Hume; but he was surpassed by none in candour, sagacity, and shrewdness. These qualities recommended him to his countrymen, and the width of his interests reconciled them to his philosophy. He was a physician, always on the outlook for new knowledge, an adviser of statesmen, a sufferer in the cause of freedom, and an amateur theologian. His writings on economics, on politics, and on religion expressed the best ideas of the time--the ideas that were about to become dominant. He was the philosopher of the Revolution settlement; and, when the settlement was made, he came home to publish the books which he had prepared in exile. Even his great work, An Essay concerning Human Understanding, may have seemed only to show the grounds in the human mind for the lessons of honesty, liberty, and toleration which he constantly inculcated. It is almost with a shock of surprise that one realises that this same Essay, by its 'historical plain method,' gave a new direction to European philosophy and provided a new basis for the science of psychology.

Locke was born at Wrington, a village in Somerset, on 29 August 1632. He was the son of a country solicitor and small landowner who, when the civil war broke out, served as a captain of horse in the parliamentary army. "I no sooner perceived myself in the world than I found myself in a storm," he wrote long afterwards,

during the lull in the storm which followed the king's return. But political unrest does not seem to have seriously disturbed the course of his education. He entered Westminster school in 1646, and passed to Christ Church, Oxford, as a junior student, in 1652; and he had a home there (though absent from it for long periods) for more than thirty years till deprived of his studentship by royal mandate in 1684. The official studies of the university were uncongenial to him; he would have preferred to have learned philosophy from Descartes instead of from Aristotle; but evidently he satisfied the authorities, for he was elected to a senior studentship in 1659, and, in the three or four years following, he took part in the tutorial work of the college. At one time he seems to have thought of the clerical profession as a possible career; but he declined an offer of preferment in 1666, and in the same year obtained a dispensation which enabled him to hold his studentship without taking orders. About the same time we hear of his interest in experimental science, and he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1668. Little is known of his early medical studies. He cannot have followed the regular course, for he was unable to obtain the degree of doctor of medicine. It was not till 1674 that he graduated as bachelor of medicine. In the following January his position in Christ Church was regularised by his appointment to one of the two medical studentships of the college.

His knowledge of medicine and occasional practice of the art led, in 1666, to an acquaintance with Lord Ashley (afterwards, from 1672, Earl of Shaftesbury). The acquaintance, begun accidentally, had an immediate effect on Locke's career. Without severing his connection with Oxford, he became a member of Shaftesbury's household, and seems soon to have been looked upon as indispensable in all matters domestic and political. He saved the statesman's life by a skilful operation, arranged a suitable marriage for his heir, attended the lady in her confine

ment, and directed the nursing and education of her sonafterwards famous as the author of Characteristics. He assisted Shaftesbury also in public business, commercial and political, and followed him into the government service. When Shaftesbury was made lord chancellor in 1672, Locke became his secretary for presentations to benefices, and, in the following year, was made secretary to the board of trade. In 1675 his official life came to an end for the time with the fall of his chief.

Locke's health, always delicate, suffered from the London climate. When released from the cares of office, he left England in search of health. Ten years earlier he had had his first experience of foreign travel and of public employment, as secretary to Sir Walter Vane, ambassador to the Elector of Brandenburg during the first Dutch war. On his return to England, early in 1666, he declined an offer of further service in Spain, and settled again in Oxford, but was soon induced by Shaftesbury to spend a great part of his time in London. On his release from office in 1675 he sought milder air in the south of France, made leisurely journeys, and settled down for many months at Montpellier. The journal which he kept at this period is full of minute descriptions of places and customs and institutions. It contains also a record of many of the reflections that afterwards took shape in the Essay concerning Human Understanding. He returned to England in 1679, when his patron had again a short spell of office. He does not seem to have been concerned in Shaftesbury's later schemes; but suspicion naturally fell upon him, and he found it prudent to take refuge in Holland. This he did in August 1683, less than a year after the flight and death of Shaftesbury. Even in Holland for some time he was not safe from danger of arrest at the instance of the English government; he moved from town to town, lived under an assumed name, and visited his friends by stealth. His residence in Holland brought political occupations with it, among the men who were