ignorant peasantry on the other-but one people, well-to-do and educated throughout.

Thus, More's opinion was, that in England in his time, “far more than four parts of the whole [people], divided into ten, could never read English," and probably the education of the other six-tenths was anything but satisfactory. He represented that in Utopia every child was properly educated.2

Again, the great object of the social economy of Utopia was not to increase the abundance of luxuries, or to amass a vast accumulation in few hands, or even in national or royal hands, but to lessen the hours of labour to the working man. By spreading the burden of labour more evenly over the whole community-by taking care that there shall be no idle classes, be they beggars or begging friars-More expressed the opinion that the hours of labour to the working man might probably be reduced to six.

Again: Living himself in Bucklersbury, in the midst of all the dirt and filth of London's narrow streets; surrounded by the unclean, ill-ventilated houses of the poor, whose floors of clay and rushes, never cleansed, were pointed out by Erasmus as breeding pestilence and inviting the ravages of the sweating sickness; himself a commissioner of sewers, and having thus some practical knowledge of London's sanitary arrangements; More described the towns of Utopia as well and regularly built, with wide streets, waterworks, hospitals, and numerous common halls; all the houses well protected from the weather, as nearly as might be fireproof, three stories high, with plenty of windows, and doors both back and front, the back door opening always into a well-kept garden. All this was Utopian doubtless, and the result in Utopia of the still more Utopian abolition of private property; but the gist and point of it consisted in the contrast it presented with what he saw around him in Europe, and especially in England, and men could hardly fail to draw the lesson he intended to teach.

3

It will not be necessary here to dwell further upon the details of the social arrangements of More's ideal commonwealth, but a word or two will be needful to point out its connection with the views of that little band of friends whose joint history I am here trying to trace.

It is not needful to refer again to the resemblance of the views expressed in "Utopia" on international questions with those of Colet and Erasmus. Far more important and characteristic is the fearless faith in science, combined with a profound faith in religion, which runs (1) More's English works. The Apology, p. 850.

(2) Utopia, 1st ed. f. h. ii.

(3) I may be allowed to refer the reader to the valuable mention of "Utopia" in the preface to Mr. Brewer's Calendar of the Letters, &c., of Henry VIII. vol. ii. cclxvii., et seq., where its connection with the political and social condition of Europe at the time is well pointed out.,

through the whole work, and which may I think be traced also in every chapter of the history of the Oxford Reformers of 1498. Their scientific knowledge was imperfect, as it needs must have been before the days of Copernicus and Newton; but they had their eyes fearlessly open in every direction with no foolish misgivings, lest science and Christianity might be found to clash. They remembered (what is not always remembered in this nineteenth century) that if there be any truth in Christianity, Nature and her laws on the one hand, and Christianity and her laws on the other, being framed and fixed by the same Founder, must be in harmony. And from this they drew the practical conclusion, that for Christians to act contrary to the laws of Nature, or to reject facts of science, on the ground that they are opposed to Christianity, is-to speak plainly to fight against one portion of the Almighty's laws under the supposed sanction of another-to fight, therefore, without the least chance of success, and with every prospect of doing harm instead of good.

It will not be necessary to quote long passages to show in what the moral philosophy of the Utopians consisted. Its distinctive features, according to More, were-1st, that they placed pleasure (in the sense of utility) as the chief object of life; and 2ndly, drew their arguments in support of this as well from the principles of religion as from natural reason.1

Thus, in considering "pleasure" as the object of life, they carefully limited its definition to "those delights both of body and mind which are according to Nature;" and they defined "virtue," also, to be "living according to Nature." For they considered those pleasures only to be sanctioned by law of Nature which are not injurious, which do not prevent greater pleasures or entail trouble, and which are approved not only by the senses, but by right reason also. They deduced from the law of Nature, which inclines men to society, that it is for a man's own interest to regard the interests of others and of the commonwealth; for, they reasoned, "to abridge the happiness of another whilst pursuing thy own, is really to commit an injury; while to deprive thyself of some pleasure in order to add to the pleasure of another, is to discharge the duty of humanity and kindness, which in itself never costs so much as it brings back again, for it is compensated both by the return of mutual benefits and the consciousness of having done right."

Thus, in Utopian philosophy, "utility" was recognised as a criterion of right and wrong; and from experience of what, under the laws of Nature, is man's real far-sighted interest, was derived a sanction to the golden rule. And thus, instead of setting themselves against the doctrine of utility, as some would do, on the ground of a supposed opposition to Christianity, they recognised the harmony (1) Utopia, 1st ed. H ii. to Ki.

between the two standards, or, as it has been recently put by Mr. Mill, they found in the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. It was natural to them that the laws of Nature and those of Christianity should coincide, because they regarded both as enacted by the same Ruler. The laws of Nature are such as they are, they said, "because God of his goodness has designed that man should be happy;" and so fixed the laws of nature, that "to live according to nature is to live a life of virtue." The Utopians, More said, "gratefully acknowledged the tenderness of the great Father of nature, who hath given us appetites which make the things necessary for our preservation also agreeable to us. How miserable would life be if hunger and thirst could only be relieved by bitter drugs!" Hence, too, the Utopians esteemed it not only "madness," but also "ingratitude to God," to waste the body by fasting, or to reject the delights of life, unless by so doing a man can serve the public or promote the happiness of others. Hence also they regarded the pursuit of natural science, the " searching out the secrets of nature," not only as an agreeable pursuit, but as "peculiarly acceptable to God." Finally, "they believed man to follow nature when he follows reason; and say that the first dictate of reason is love and reverence for Him to whom we owe all we have and all we can hope for."

From their possession of so fearless a faith in the consistency of Christianity with science, it might be inferred that the religion of the Utopians would be at once broad and tolerant. It could not logically be otherwise. The Utopians, we are told, differed very widely; but notwithstanding all their different objects of worship, they agreed in thinking that there is one Supreme Being who made and governs the world. By the exigencies of the romance, the Christian religion had only been recently introduced into the island. It existed there side by side with other and older religions, and hence the difficulties of complete toleration in Utopia were much greater hypothetically than they would be in any European country. Still, sharing Colet's hatred of persecution, More represented that it was one of the oldest laws of Utopia " that no man is to be punished for his religion." Every one might be of any religion he pleased, and might use argument to induce others to accept it. It was only when men resorted to other force than that of persuasion, using reproaches and violence, that they were banished from Utopia; and then, not on account of their religion, and irrespective of whether their religion were true or false, but for sowing sedition and creating a tumult.

This law Utopus founded to preserve the public peace, and for the interests of religion itself. Supposing only one religion to be true and the rest false (which he dared not rashly assert), Utopus had faith

(1) Mill's Essay on Utilitarianism, p. 24.

that in the long run the innate force of truth would prevail, if supported only by fair argument and not damaged by resort to violence and tumult. Thus, he did not punish even avowed atheists, although he considered them unfit for any public trust.

Their priests were very few in number, and, like all their other magistrates, elected by ballot (suffragiis occultis), and it was a point of dispute even with the Utopian Christians whether they could not elect their own Christian priests in like manner, and qualify them to perform all priestly offices, without any apostolic succession or authority from the Pope. Their priests were, in fact, rather conductors of the public worship, inspectors of the public morals, and ministers of education, than "priests," in any sacerdotal sense of the word, and such was the respect shown them that they were not amenable to the civil tribunals—an exemption which, on account of the extreme fewness of their number and the high character secured by their mode of election, gave rise to no great inconvenience in Utopian practice.

If the diversity of religions in Utopia made it more difficult to suppose perfect toleration, and thus made the contrast between Utopian and European practice in this respect all the more telling, so also was this the case in respect to the conduct of public worship.

The hatred of the Oxford Reformers for the endless dissensions of European Christians; the advice Colet was wont to give to theological students, "to keep to the Bible and the Apostles' Creed, and let divines, if they like, dispute about the rest ;" the appeal of Erasmus to Servatius, whether it would not be better for "all Christendom to be regarded as one monastery, and all Christians as belonging to the same religious brotherhood,”—all pointed, if directed to the practical question of public worship, to a mode of worship in which all of every shade of sentiment could unite.

This might be a dream, even then while as yet Christendom was nominally united in one Catholic Church; and still more practically impossible in a country like Utopia, where men worshipped the Supreme Being under different symbols and different names, as it might be now even in a Protestant country like England, where religion seems to be the source of social divisions and castes rather than a tie of brotherhood, separating men in their education, their social life, and even in their graves, by the hard line of sectarian difference. It might be a dream, but it was one worth a place in the dream-land of More's ideal commonwealth.

Temples, nobly built and spacious, in whose solemn twilight men of all sects meet, in spite of their distinctions, to unite in a public worship avowedly so arranged that nothing may be seen or heard which shall jar with the feelings of any class of the worshippers— nothing in which all cannot unite (for every sect performs its own peculiar rites in private);—no images, so that every one may represent

the Deity to his own thoughts in his own way; no forms of prayer, but such as every one may use without prejudice to his own private opinion; a service so expressive of their common brotherhood that they think it a great impiety to enter upon it with a consciousness of anger or hatred to any one, without having first purified their hearts and reconciled every difference; incense and other sweet odours and waxen lights, burned, not from any notion that they can confer any benefit on God, which even men's prayers cannot, but because they are useful aids to the worshippers; the men occupying one side of the temple, the women the other, and all clothed in white; the whole people rising as the priest who conducts the worship enters the temple in his beautiful vestment, wonderfully wrought of birds' plumage, to join in hymns of praise, accompanied by music; then priest and people uniting in solemn prayer to God in a set form of words, so composed that each can apply its meaning to himself, offering thanks for the blessings which surround them, for the happiness of their commonwealth, for their having embraced a religious persuasion which they hope is the most true one; praying that if they are mistaken they may be led to what is really the true one, so that all may be brought to unity of faith and practice, unless in his inscrutable will the Almighty should otherwise ordain; and concluding with a prayer that, as soon as it may please Him, He may take them to Himself; lastly, this prayer concluded, the whole congregation bowing solemnly to the ground, and then, after a short pause, separating to spend the remainder of the day in innocent amusement,-this was More's ideal of public worship!1

Such was the second book of the "Utopia," written by More whilst on the Embassy, towards the close of 1515, and left by him with his friend Peter Giles, at Antwerp, for his perusal and criticism. Well might he conclude with the words, "I freely confess that many things in the commonwealth of Utopia I rather wish than hope to see adopted in our own!"

3. MORE DRAWN INTO COURT. HIS INTRODUCTION TO THE

“UTOPIA" (1516).

On More's return to England in the spring of 1516, he was obliged to throw himself again into the vortex of public business. The singular discretion and ability displayed by him in the conduct of the delicate negotiations entrusted to his skill on this and another occasion, now induced Henry VIII. to try to attach him to his court.

Hitherto he had acted more on behalf of the London merchants than directly for the king. Now Wolsey was ordered to retain him in the king's service. More was unwilling, however, to accede to the proposal, and made excuses. Wolsey thinking no doubt that he was (1) Utopia, 1st ed. "De religionibus Vtopiensium."