« PreviousContinue »
became somewhat conspicuous for his quiet opposition to their theories on Church matters. These sermons were then regarded as a sort of gentle protest against the rising tractarianism of the times, and were sedulously read. They have been subsequently re-issued.
In his thirty-fourth year (1821) Whately married, and thenceforth became a “member not on the foundation,” as it is technically called. His wife was Miss Pope, daughter of William Pope, Esq., of Hillingdon, Middlesex; a lady of taste, talent, and accomplishments, to whose pen we have heard the following works attributed, viz., “Reverses, or Memoirs of the Fairfax Family,” “English Life, Social and Domestic,” “Chance and Choice; or the Education of Circumstances," “ The Light and the Life; or the History of Him whose name we bear,” &c., &c.*
He was chosen by the heads of the colleges of Oxford to deliver in 1822 a series of “eight divinity lecture sermons” under the will of the Rev. John Bampton, Canon of Salisbury (1690—1751). The subject he selected was, “The Use and Abuse of Party Feeling in Matters of Religion ;' and he treated the topic with delicacy, discrimination, liberality, ability, and judgment. They were issued in the “ Bampton Lecture ” series, and were afterwards several times republished, with some additional cognate sermons, and a discourse by Archbishop King. Meanwhile, he had also contributed to the Encyclopedia Metropolitana that treatise on Rhetoric which forms the complement of his work on Logic, and enables him to explain the various forms of persuasive argument which are not included in the latter work, because it is more exclusively devoted to the expli. cation and illustration of the means of convincing the intellect, than those of moving the feelings or changing the heart.
In his thirty-fifth year (1822), with his reputation as a thinker fully established, with scholarly habits formed, and with no small amount of popularity as a preacher attained, he accepted the rectorship of Halesworth, with the vicarage of Chediston, in the rural deanery of Dunwich, the archdeaconry of Suffolk, and the diocese of Norfolk. Halesworth is situated in Bly thing hundred, Suffolk. The area of the parish is about 1,100 acres, and its population at that time was about 2,400. These livings produced a joint yearly income of £450, exclusive of a glebe-house. In this agricultural parish the routine duties of the clerical office were duly performed by the Rev. Richard Whately, but yet he did not forget the high claims which society and the Church had on him as a man in whom the vis animi was singularly active and penetrating. While, there. fore, he superintended his day, evening, and Sunday schools, encouraged the lending library, advocated and took part in village charities, and preached his sermons statedly in the handsome Gothic church of that irregularly-built and then oil-lighted township, he varied his avocations by acting as select preacher at Oxford, and by thoroughly revising his logic and rhetoric. In 1825, the Principalship of St. Alban's Hall, Oxford, was .conferred on him, as were also the titular degrees B.D., D.D., and he resumed his connection with the University of which he had for so long a time been an ornament and a stay. In this year, too, his “Elements of Logic” and his “Elements of Rhetoric" were separately republished, and quickly took their place as firstclass and standard works on their respective subjects-becoming at the same time the causes of an extraordinary stir in the minds of intellectual men, and effecting for these studies a revival, of which the force is not yet spent. These works are singularly Faluable illustrations of the author's own maxim, that to write clearly, we must think clearly; and the mode of their composition was, we have been reliably informed, just such as to produce most effectually works which exhibit vigorous thought expressed in transparent language. It was his habit, in his lonely walks, to fix his mind upon the topic to be contemplated; and after due reflection on, and arrangement of style, treatment, and ideas, to write, on his return, in the words most readily attainable at the time, the thoughts to which his attention had been directed, and thereafter to subject his composition to vigorous, severe, and critical revision. This useful habit cultivated in him that concentration of thought, that thorough bottoming of every idea on some sure principle, that terse and continent form of conducting an argument, which mark him out so distinctly from so many of the writers of Oxford. The careful selection of relevant matters and fitting imagery, the judicious marshalling and adjustment of his intellectual forces, the irresistible phalanx in which he brings before the mind his several propositions, and the principles on which they rest, are not less remarkable than the fresh, pure flow of his diction, and the precision and distinctness with which the exact meaning is conveyed by each individual sentence; so that each paragraph-as a flawless, well-cut diamond throws light from each facet, and yet holds its own proper unity and form before the eye-imparts a definite thought in the most unambiguous phraseology. Perplexed mysticism, shadowy sophisms, illusive illustrations, airy speculations, and the gauzewoven tissues of mere fancy, suffer instant disenchantment on the application of his scrupulously yet fearlessly practical logic ; and the “precipitation" of error is almost as certain when his thought touches a fallacy, as is the detection of the most minute particle of any arsenical preparation by the application of the chemist's tests. Perspicuous, straightforward, thoroughgoing, uncompromising, and high-principled thinking, is to be found in all his works; and if occasionally he mistakes prolixity for perspicuity, homely illustration for straightforwardness, bald distinctness for energy and earnestness, or politic halting before a difficulty for practical honesty, it results more from candour, impartiality, and a desire to be free even from suspicion, than from any defect of moral feeling, or from infelicity of judgment. It is very singular that though, perhaps, no member of the bench of bishops has produced a greater number of useful works, or exercised a wider and deeper influence upon the thinkers of the age, the journalists who lay claim to being the arbiters of literary fate have so seldom noticed his writings; and even when they did, gave expression so parsimoniously to any approval of his compositions, character, and life. His fame was earned without the critic's pan-pipe, and without the heralding of the leaders of contemporary periodical publications. His celebrity has been a growth, not an inflation, yet he has not been exempted from or altogether left untouched by criticism. In 1827, George Bentham, nephew of the great legist, published “An Outline of a New System of Logic, with a critical examination of Dr. Whately's Elements of Logic”-a work of considerable ability, and one which makes out a few cases against the book it criticises ; but the promise of a fuller system, based on his uncle's philosophy, has not been fulfilled. In 1828, John Stuart Mill published a very favourable critique on the “Elements” in the Westminster Review, although he somewhat qualifies his praise by saying that its author has “rather written excellently concerning Logic, than expounded in the best possible manner the science itself.” In 1829, George Cornewall Lewis, Esq.-now Sir George-(born 1806), but then a student of Christ Church, Oxford, issued “ An Examination of Some Passages in Dr. Whately's Elements of Logic,” in which a number of remarks, indicative of a pretty thorough mastery of the subject, appeared. These, we think, were the most noteworthy criticisms of the time. The impulse being given, several new works on Logic were almost immediately issued, and a successive stream of such works has been given from the press of late years.
* This excellent lady died in 1860.
The severe criticism by Sir William Hamilton-himself an Oxford scholar—in the Edinburgh Review, did not appear till April, 1833. In this article, while acknowledging that in reference to all the contemporary and correlative treatises and tractates on Logic, Whately's “Elements" stands among them all the highest in point of originality and learning, he yet deliberately gives the following [unrecalled] judgment. “His work, indeed, never transcends, and generally does not rise to, the actual level of the science; nor with all its ability can it justly pretend to more than a relative and local importance. Its most original and valuable portion is but the insufficient correction of mistakes touching the nature of Logic, long exploded, if ever harboured among the countrymen of Leibnitz, and only lingering among the disciples of Locke.” In this harsh decision we do not coincide, and we fancy that good reason will hereafter be shown for considerably modifying the dictum of the illustrious Scottish logician.
We shall now proceed to present a concise abstract of the “Elements of Logic,” taking in conjunction with it the “Elements of Rhetoric;" we shall then review the contents and doctrines of the two books so far as they relate to the science and the art of reasoning. A slight notice of the author's other manifold treatises will be subjoined, and the record of the public events of his life will be brought down to the present date.
IS THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF CHURCH PATRONAGE
AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I. Much oratory has been expended, during the last half century, on what has been odiously characterized as the “adulterous connection between Church and State.” To persons having a turn for what Mrs. Malaprop would call “ a nice derangement of epitaphs," the term “adulterous " seems to add vigour to a racy sentence, and rounds a period with éclat. But such lively specimens of English malediction very imperfectly define, or do not define at all, that marvellous, but more useful than marvellous, piece of diplomacy and wise statecraft, of which the Church of England is the magnificent result. We would appeal from the objurgations of these unreflecting orators, who have been defined as persons “ who talk nonsense till sense comes,” to minds of a larger growth, who are able to look below the surface of the phenomena of a national institution, and who can comprehend in some degree the philosophy of history. To the patriot, nothing can be more deplorable than the spectacle which is so often presented to his observation, of the growth of fanaticism in the bosoms of religious congregations. This kind of mania is almost invariably associated with churches where the lay element is conspicuously wanting, and where the standard of intellectual culture is subordinated to theological erudition, or the manifestations of a spasmodic and sometimes delirious piety. We think it is not difficult to show that the comparatively reasonable religion, of which the Church of England is the source and fountain, may be justly attributed to its connection with the State, and to that machinery of “Church Patronage,” for which it has been so unceasingly and ignorantly reviled.
Ever since the days of Hildebrand and our own Henry ; ever since those dreadful knights, seeking to serve their Sovereign, dogged A'Becket to his church at Canterbury, and slew him near the high altar; ever since that memorable struggle between the Pontiff and the King, and that sad assassination of the English Archbishop, has the battle between the temporal and the spiritual authority continued to mark, in its own peculiarly ruthless way, the track of our national history. Undoubtedly, one of the culminating epochs in this absorbing conflict for supremacy was the Reformation. To the comparatively absolute sway of the Pope in England, succeeded the more tolerable form of Church government, in which the lay
or secular element largely mingled. Rome no longer predominated in the ecclesiastical life of England, but had to share with the civil power the vast prerogatives of which it had for centuries held the great monopoly. In all essential respects, and for all practical purposes, that momentous period of our history beheld the rise of what is called “ Church Patronage." Church patronage may be regarded as the result of a great national compromise. The present Lord Derby declared some years ago, that almost every valuable institution in the country was the result of a compromise. « Church patronage” was the natural but ingenious expedient designed to secure that equilibrium of authority which is the ideal of our national constitution. “Church patronage” is, in effect, the aggregate national voice, claiming to administer the human side of our national human life, and presupposing that men's reason and their knowledge are the main and principal guides in the fulfilment of their destiny. So it is that the grand seigneurs of the soil—the great territorial proprietors, every order of the nobility, the gentry of England, the great officers of State, and the venerable chiefs of the Universities, and the ancient seats of learning-all participate in the pregnant work of electing the ministers of the national religion, and purifying that religion from the asceticism and the bigotry incident to churches less secularly governed.
If it be objected that this widely varied and multifarious patronage lends its own colour to the institution which it so largely governs—that, for instance, a university may be suspected of having a standard of selection deeply impregnated with a classic, or mathematical, or scientific bias, we reply that religion profits by its association with the precious culture of past civilization; and that a mind chastened by the severe intellectual discipline inevitable to the study of physical science, withstands with ease those formidable assaults of a transcendental spiritualism, which have been the shame and blame of churches less happily circumstanced. Again, if it be said that the Lord Chancellor of England-in whom some considerable patronage is vested, and to whom doubtless a crowd of competent and accomplished candidates look for the reward of an enlightened and civilizing industry,-may be influenced in the choice of a clergyman, as much by his own personal predilection for politics and law, as by merely theological considerations, we maintain that it is perfectly natural, as it is perfectly salutary. A great and opulent ecclesiastical corporation, sundered from all sympathy with the mighty interests of the nation, apart from the incalculable individual mischief it would occasion, would tend to render the machinery of civil government cumbrous and unmanageable.
If the popular objection be repeated, that “Church patronage " is largely appropriated by the “great houses,” by the “country families," and by the gentry of England, for the benefit of "younger brothers," assuming that the accusation is as well founded as it pretends to be, we still aver that the Church gains conspicuously