and morals the test of citizenship, cannot but appear wise and good. And yet the mixture of races is essential to the improvement of mankind, and an exclusive attachment to national customs is incompatible with true liberality. How then was the problem to be solved how could civilization be attained without moral degeneracy? how could a narrow-minded bigotry be escaped without falling into the worse evil of Epicurean indifference? Christianity has answered these questions most satisfactorily, by making religious and moral agreement independent of race or national customs; by furnishing us with a sure criterion to distinguish between what is essential and eternal, and what is indifferent, and temporal or local allowing, nay, commanding us to be with regard to every thing of this latter kind in the highest degree tolerant, liberal, and comprehensive; while it gives to the former that only sanction to which implicit reverence may safely and usefully be paid, not the fond sanction of custom, or national prejudice, or human authority of any kind whatever, but the sanction of the truth of God.

"That bond and test of citizenship then, which the ancient legislators were compelled to seek in sameness of race, because thus only could they avoid the worst of evils, a confusion and conse- . quent indifference in men's notions of right and wrong, is now furnished to us in the profession of Christianity. He who is a Christian, let his race be what it will, let his national customs be ever so different from ours, is fitted to become our fellow-citizen; for his being a Christian implies that he retains such of his national customs only as are morally indifferent; and for all such we ought to feel the most perfect toleration. He who is not a Christian, though his family may have lived for generations on the same soil with us, though they may have bought and sold with us, though they may have been protected by our laws, and paid* taxes in return for that

* "It is considered in our days that those who are possessed of property in a country ought to be citizens in it: the ancient maxim was, that those who were citizens ought to be possessed of property. The difference involved in these two different views is most remarkable."

In one of his letters also, Dr. Arnold remarks, "The correlative to taxation, in my opinion, is not citizenship but protection. . To confound the right of taxing oneself with the right of general legislation, is one of the Jacobinical confusions of later days, arising from those low Warburtonian notions of the ends of political society."

Arnold's mind was so deeply imbued with Greek philosophy--especially that of his

protection, is yet essentially not a citizen but a sojourner; and to admit such a person to the rights of citizenship tends in principle to the confusion of right and wrong, and lowers the objects of political society to such as are merely physical and external."

The reader, who desires to investigate the subject discussed in the Appendix to the Inaugural Lecture, may consult, besides the authorities referred to there, the following works: Coleridge's 'Constitution of Church and State according to the Idea of Each,' Maurice's' Kingdom of Christ,' and Derwent Coleridge's 'Scriptural Character of the English Church.'

chief favourite Aristotle, his feeling for whom was ever finding utterance in terms of even affectionate and familiar endearment, that to understand him rightly, it is necessary to bear in mind how much higher and more comprehensive a meaning there was in the Greek 'Tóλɩɩкŋ' than in our English term 'politics.' It has been well remarked by the writer of the article 'Civitas' in the 'Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities,' that, "If we would picture to ourselves the true notion which the Greeks embodied in the word wóλis, we must lay aside all modern ideas respecting the nature and object of a state. With us practically, if not in theory, the essential object of a state hardly embraces more than the protection of life and property. The Greeks, on the other hand, had the most vivid conception of the state as a whole, every part of which was to co-operate to some great end, to which all other duties were considered as subordinate."

LECTURE I.

Ir will not, I trust, be deemed impertinent or affected, if at the very outset of these Lectures I venture again to request the indulgence of my hearers for the many deficiencies which will undoubtedly be found in them. I could not enter on the duties of my office with tolerable cheerfulness, if I might not confess how imperfectly I can hope to fulfil them. And this is the more necessary, because I hope that our standard of excellence in history will be continually rising; we shall be convinced, I trust, more and more, of the vast amount of knowledge which the historical student should aim at, and of the rare union of high qualifications required in a perfect historian. Now just in proportion to your sense of this, must be unavoidably your sense of the defects of these Lectures; because I must often dwell on the value of a knowledge which I do not possess; and must thus lay open my own ignorance by the very course which I believe to be most beneficial to my hearers.

I would gladly consent, however, even to call your attention to my want of knowledge, because it is, I think, of such great importance to all of us to have a lively consciousness of the exact limits of our knowledge and our ignorance. A keen sense of either implies, indeed, an equally keen sense of the other. A bad geographer looks upon the map of a known and of an unknown country with pretty nearly the same eyes. The random line which expresses the form of a coast not yet explored; the streams suddenly stopping in

their course, or as suddenly beginning to be delineated, because their outlet or their sources are unknown; these convey to the eye of an untaught person no sense of deficiency, because the most complete survey of the most thoroughly explored country gives him no sense of full information. But he who knows how to value a good map, is painfully aware of the defects of a bad one; and he who feels these defects, would also value the opposite excellencies. And thus in all things, as our knowledge and ignorance are curiously intermixed with one another, so it is most important to keep the limits of each distinctly traced, that we may be able confidently to make use of the one, while we endeavour to remove or lessen the other.

One other remark of a different nature I would wish to make also, before I enter upon my lectures. Considering that the great questions on which men most widely differ from each other, belong almost all to modern history, it seems scarcely possible to avoid expressing opinions which some of my hearers will think erroneous. Even if not expressed they would probably be indicated, and I do not know how this is to be avoided. Yet I shall be greatly disappointed if at the close of these lectures, our feeling of agreement with one another is not much stronger than our feeling of differYou will not judge me so hardly as to suppose that I am expressing a hope of proselytizing any one: my meaning is very different. But I suppose that all calm inquiry conducted amongst those who have their main principles of judgment in common, leads, if not to an approximation of views, yet at least to an increase of sympathy. And the truths of historical science, which I certainly believe to be very real and very important, are not exactly the same thing with the opinions of any actual party.

ence.

I will now detain you no longer with any prefatory observations, but will proceed directly to our subject. I will sup

pose then, if you please, the case of a member of this university who has just taken his degree, and finding himself at leisure to enter now more fully into other than classical or mathematical studies, proposes to apply himself to modern history. We will suppose, moreover, that his actual knowledge of the subject goes no farther than what he has collected from any of the common popular compendiums. And now our question is, in what manner he should be recommended to proceed.

We must allow that the case is one of considerable perplexity. Hitherto in ancient profane history, his attention has been confined almost exclusively to two countries: and to a few great writers whose superior claims to attention are indisputable. Nay, if he goes farther, and endeavours to illustrate the regular historians from the other and miscellaneous literature of the period, yet his work in most cases is to be accomplished without any impossible exertion; for many periods indeed of ancient history, and these not the least interesting, all our existing materials are so scanty that it takes but little time to acquaint ourselves with them all, and their information is not of a bulk to oppress any but the very feeblest memory.

How overwhelming is the contrast when the student turns to modern history! Instead of two countries claiming his attention, he finds several systems of countries, if I may so speak, any one of which offers a wide field of inquiry. First of all, there is the history of Europe; then quite distinct from this there is oriental history; and thirdly, there is the history of European colonies. But when we turn from the subjects of inquiry to the sources of information, the difference is greater still. Consider the long rows of folio volumes which present themselves to our notice in the Bodleian, or in our college libraries; and think how many of these relate to modern history. There is the Benedictine collection of the