ferred floors on piles in the water to building their houses on the dry land? Here, again, Herodotus goes far towards answering the question when he relates how Megabazus, the conqueror of the Thracians, carried off captive the Paeonians and the people as far as Lake Prasias, but there were certain tribes whom he could not overcome, and among them were the dwellers on pilehabitations in the lake, whom he tried to subdue, but could not.

The muddy bottom of a lake where a pile-settlement has stood becomes a wonderfully perfect museum of chips, broken implements, lost articles, rubbish, and remains which fell into the water when fire, the lake dweller's great enemy, destroyed his habitation and the very ground under his feet. Such lake-bottoms in Switzerland are of especial interest to ethnologists, for they show that among the lake-dwellers there all stages of culture, from a rude and early Stone Age, through an advancing Bronze Age, up to a well-marked Iron Age, are clearly to be traced. Now antiquaries who can look upon the ages marked by the use of stone, bronze, and iron as indicating distinct ethnological periods, may assume that there lies here before us the record of a supersession of an original Stone Age race by a new Bronze Age race, and of this again by a succeeding Iron Age race. M. Troyon supports such an opinion, but Dr. Keller attacks it vigorously, maintaining that the lake-dwellings of Switzerland were from first to last the work of one and the same people, who began at a low stage of culture with implements of stone, and thence rose gradually to the use of bronze, and at last to that of iron. And this race he clearly considers to have been the Keltic, though by some want of clearness in translating or by a mistake in printing, in the very passage (p. 313) in which he intended solemnly to lay down his conclusion, he seems exactly to unsay what he says before and afterwards. This view is, at any rate, a good corrective to those speculations which so readily make degree of civilisation a test of race, as if races never changed their degree of civilisation. And to say that a lake-dwelling people may have begun with stone implements, and may afterwards have in some way got to the use of bronze and iron, and to an otherwise increased civilisation, is only to say that changes, such as have happened in modern times within our knowledge in America or Polynesia, may have happened to the ancient lake-dwellers in Switzerland. Even when Dr. Keller goes on to say that these early lake-dwelling Swiss were Kelts, he has a case on his side, for the existence of Kelts in Switzerland is admitted, and he can (if he chooses) argue that there is nothing unreasonable in making Kelts lake-dwellers, seeing that Kelts have lived, and fished, and defended themselves in crannoges in the Irish lakes up to almost modern times. But, on the other hand, we know nothing of Kelts, or of any other Aryan race, in their Stone Age; however early we discern anything of them they have always arrived, at least, at the use of bronze. And we know how Aryans have migrated over the world, settling in lands occupied already by races at a lower stage of civilisation; Scandinavians and Sclavonians spreading into countries occupied by Tatar races; Hindus descending into India among Tamils, Koles, Gonds, and the rest; European Aryans raising into the Iron Age the populations of North and South America, whom they found partly in the Stone and partly in the Bronze. All over the world relics are found of Stone Age inhabitants. Mr. Lee quotes (p. 17) a remark of Dr. Livingstone's, to the effect that no stone arrow-heads, spears, or axes have been discovered in Africa, but this is quite incorrect; stone implements have been found there in several districts. In the

south we even know something of a rise from the Stone to the Iron Age in comparatively modern times. In the west we find people who have long been iron-makers, and who consider as thunderbolts, and preserve as sacred objects, the stone hatchets which they find, the relics of a race who were perhaps their ancestors, perhaps only earlier occupiers of the soil. Such a Stone Age race built the earliest Swiss lake habitations, and if, as Dr. Keller thinks, the whole series of such dwellings through the Bronze and Iron Ages may be safely set down to the same people, then analogy would lead us to infer that they were raised in culture by contact with foreign, perhaps with Keltic, civilisation. They may also have become mixed with Keltic blood, but as the case now stands, there is great difficulty in viewing them as purely and originally Kelts.

As to the funeral rites of the lake dwellers, Dr. Keller tells us that nothing is known, no burying place of theirs having been discovered. But as to their religion, he founds a speculation on certain curious objects of stone and earthenware, something like a pair of ox horns, eight to twelve inches across, and made with bases, so as to stand. These he considers to represent the crescent moon, and to have been objects of worship. He endeavours to strengthen this view by mentioning that the half-moon occurs among other symbols on Gaulish coins, and that Pliny, in describing the cutting of the mistletoe, says that the Druids considered the five-days' moon to have great virtue, and called it the "allhealing." This is the whole of an argument which seems a weak one; the things are, in fact, more like horns than moons, and it is very unsafe to suppose them religious emblems, merely because we do not know what they were for. The habit of the Serwatty Islanders to set up on the gable-ends of their chiefs' huts wooden appendages, apparently representing buffalo-horns, is one example of a use to which such things could be applied, without any reference to religion. Dr. Keller is a thorough-going, cautious reasoner of the modern school, and rarely approaches even so nearly as in this case to the habitual speculations of the old-fashioned antiquaries on such subjects. Archæology is indeed emerging from its Stone and Bronze Ages, and though these ruder periods are still represented in many current books, such works as the present retain only a few traces of the transition, and practically belong to the more highly cultured Age of Iron. EDWARD B. TYLOR.

THE

FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW.

No. XXXVII.-DECEMBER 1, 1866.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS A RELIGIOUS BODY.

RATHER more than a year ago, I ventured to say a few words in the FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW on a question which has long seemed to me one of considerable interest; namely, the relation borne by the two great political parties to the Established Church of England and Ireland. My object at that time was to point out the fundamental opposition in the attitude which is assumed towards that institution by Liberals on the one hand, and Conservatives on the other; the former regarding it as a means to certain ends, the latter as an end in itself, the maintenance of which is a positive duty incumbent on the State. In considering this Conservative theory I endeavoured to show at the same time that it is not the duty of the State to support any particular form of dogmatic religion, and that every privilege conceded to one religious body and withheld from another is an injustice and an inequality.

In that article, which dealt only with a single branch of a very wide and serious subject, two questions were left unanswered: the first, Whether there should be a State Church at all? and the second, If there be a State Church, what character and what purposes it should have? The observations now submitted to public consideration will have reference to both these questions, but more especially to the second. In other words, the former article treated of the Church as a political institution, this one will deal with it as a religious community; we previously considered its relation to the State, we shall now be called upon to discuss its internal constitution.

I. To the first question, whether there should be a State Church at all, it is perhaps hardly possible to return a positive or universal answer. Many will undoubtedly suppose, that when we have once laid down the principle that the State ought not to protect any one

belief rather than another, we have already answered it by implication in the negative. And this opinion is not unnatural. We naturally judge of any human institution by the forms under which we have met with it in history, or under which we are now accustomed to see it. And certainly, if the Churches of the future are to resemble those of the past, their protection and endowment will be wholly inconsistent with the duty of an enlightened community to hold an impartial balance among conflicting sects. Still, there is a possibility that means may be found of reconciling ecclesiastical endowments with complete toleration; and it ought not therefore to be rashly inferred that the extension of religious liberty must involve the downfall of the Established Church. How the two may be reconciled I shall in the ensuing pages endeavour to explain.

We are not, in this inquiry, called upon to consider what we might do if we were constructing an imaginary republic like that of Plato. We have rather to take existing facts as they are, and to ask whether, in obedience to one theory, it is the duty of every good Government to support some form of religious belief; or whether, in conformity to the other, every Established Church must be condemned as contrary to all sound principle, so that it ought to be destroyed even in those countries where it already exists.

The former theory appears to proceed upon the assumption that a government cannot show its attachment to religion except by bestowing its patronage upon some particular creed. This assumption is quite unfounded. Respect for religion may be shown just as well by conceding equal liberty of worship and of teaching to all its ministers of every denomination. In short, the Government is in no way bound to provide religion for the people. In the United States we have an instance of complete toleration and complete absence of any alliance between religion and the State. Indeed, it is one of the privileges enjoyed by the people of that country that they are unencumbered with the effects of that medieval policy by which the secular power was accustomed to ally itself with the dominant priesthood for the purpose of persecution and repression. Yet, though the constitution does not in any way protect or patronise the clergy, though it does not uphold any form of Christianity, it cannot be pretended that the Americans are indifferent to religion. M. de Tocqueville appears to have been struck with nothing more than with the extremely religious aspect presented by their country, and on conversing with his acquaintances, he found that priests and laymen alike attributed the peaceful influence which religion exercised among them, to the entire separation of Church and State.1

(1) "A mon arrivée aux Etats-Unis, ce fut l'aspect religieux du pays qui frappa d'abord mes regards. . . . J'avais vu parmi nous l'esprit de religion et l'esprit de liberté marcher presque toujours en sens contraire. Ici, je les retrouvais intimement unis l'un

...

Acknowledging, as I do, the advantage which the Americans enjoy over us in their total exemption from any inequality in the political status of different sects a state of things to which we have not yet attained-I feel compelled to notice one disadvantage which is incidental to the absence of endowments. If the clergy are either entirely, or to any considerable extent, dependent upon their congregations for the amount of their incomes, they will of course be tempted to preach those doctrines which they know to be agreeable to their hearers, and those only. They will shun the utterance of any conviction which is likely to bring odium or unpopularity upon them. They will be careful not to denounce the darling vices of their age. Being exposed to the direct and immediate action of public opinion, they will be held strictly to that which public opinion in their age and country considers orthodox. That an endowed clergy is wholly free from these influences it would be too much to say; but it may safely be affirmed that an unendowed clergy, especially if liable to censure or expulsion by spiritual courts, will be more completely and effectually debarred from teaching heresy. Since, therefore, it is eminently desirable that heresy should be taught (the proof of this proposition will be attempted in the sequel), it would be right that where the clergy are unendowed there should exist, either through the medium of professors' chairs at universities, or in some other way, the means of supporting learned men who may be wholly free to inculcate whatever opinions they happen to believe without the fear of suffering for so doing. It is not intended by this that these learned men must be heretics, but that they may be so; and that they shall occupy stations of authority and influence. Thus, the struggle against popular errors will not be left to the unsupported efforts of private individuals, opposed as they will be by the united strength of the ecclesiastical element in the nation. Such a provision being made to secure at least a fair hearing for the opinions of the minority, there would perhaps be no urgent reason to establish a State Church, and every reason against establishing it in the sense in which such an institution is commonly understood.

The matter becomes a good deal more complicated when we have to consider, not whether we should found an Established Church in a country where it does not exist, but whether, finding one already in existence, we should abolish or retain it. That a certain That a certain very earnest

à l'autre : ils régnaient ensemble sur le même sol. Chaque jour je sentis croître mon désir de connaître la cause de ce phénomène. Pour l'apprendre, j'interrogeai les fidèles de toutes les communions. . . je trouvai que tous ces hommes ne différaient entre eux que sur des détails; mais tous attribuaient principalement à la complète séparation de l'Eglise et de l'Etat l'empire paisible que la religion exerce en leur pays. Je ne crains pas d'affirmer que, pendant mon séjour en Amérique, je n'ai pas rencontré un seul homme, prêtre ou laïque, qui ne soit tombé d'accord sur ce point." (De la Démocratic en Amérique, vol. i. chap. xvii.)