Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

Hamilton's greatness could be brought forward than the mere fact that his system was made the peg upon which Mr. John Mill deliberately chose to hang his vindication of the utilitarian doctrines. By the present generation, which has never beheld the noble features and the commanding presence, which has never been thrilled by the sonorous voice, nor fascinated by the kindling eye, of which his pupils speak with one accord,—some such testimony is certainly required. For Sir William Hamilton's consequence in the realm of philosophy has diminished in proportion as time has necessarily contracted the sphere in which his personality asserted itself; insomuch that to-day the "school of thought" which he founded is almost barren of pupils; while for the present, at all events, the Necessary Laws of Thought, the Quantification of the Predicate, and the Philosophy of the Conditioned have withdrawn into obscurity.

It would be vain to deny that for this result Sir William Hamilton himself is largely to blame. The scope of his reading was immense; his knowledge of the ancient and modern philosophers was well-nigh boundless in extent. But there is some little plausibility in Mr. Mill's criticism that the time he devoted to mere erudition permitted of his giving only the remains of his mind to the real business of thinking; and, at any rate, it is plain that the mass of material he had accumulated was too unwieldy for skilful and workmanlike handling. An insatiable appetite for learning was accompanied by an impaired power of assimilation; and the quotations with which he is so fond of fortifying his propositions can often be compared, in respect of relevance and conclusiveness, to nothing save to some of the Scriptural "proofs subjoined to the answers in the Shorter Catechism. Moreover, he has left no truly satisfactory and adequate exposition of his views, which have in many cases to be collected from scattered and disjointed dicta, and frequently present inconsistencies which a more thorough and systematic treatment might easily have removed. The Lectures, written, each series in five months, each lecture the night before it was delivered—and once so written, never altered—are full of the faults which such a method of composition must needs beget; and the most coherent and satisfying statement of his philosophical position must be sought in his elaborate commentary on the writings of another.

[ocr errors]

Sir William Hamilton's English is bald without simplicity, and severe without impressiveness. The Lectures, it is true, contain

Even

passages of considerable power and animation when he is making preparations to clinch his argument with an extract from the poets. But, in common with the rest of his writings, they are so interwoven with quotations, and these frequently of great length, that the movement of his prose is arrested before any impetus has been acquired, and the curious reader is hurried away from Hamilton to some one else. It is consequently peculiarly difficult to do justice to Hamilton's style by means of selections. at its best, however, it is wholly destitute of the charm which springs from aptly arranged words and nicely balanced sentences. Its supreme merit is clearness. He states his propositions I., II., III., as articulately as though he were drawing the pleadings in an action (indeed, a turn of phrase here and there irresistibly reminds one that he was an advocate before he became a professor), and in the discussion of each separate proposition he invokes the aid even of the printer's art to purge his statement of all possible ambiguity by means of capitals, italics, and inset paragraphs. The worst of all this painful lucidity is that it is often indistinguishable from pedantry. But the philosopher whose task it is to be to win the ear of the world once more for the system of Common Sense (so-called) will do well to imitate Sir William's zeal for accuracy and exactitude, though these excellences are doubtless attainable at a somewhat less serious sacrifice of attractiveness and grace.

J. H. MILLAR.

THEOLOGY AND CLASSICAL STUDY

As the Scottish Reformation did not originate in native learning, so it did not even come recommended to the Scottish people, by the learned authority of its propagators. In relation to other national Reformers, the Reformer of Scotland was an unlettered man. "Compared with Knox,” says a great German historian, Spittler, "Luther was but a timorous boy";—but if Knox surpassed Luther himself in intrepidity, even Luther was a learned theologian by the side of Knox. With the exception of Melville, who obtained what erudition he possessed abroad, the religion of the people of Scotland could boast of no theologian, living in Scotland, worthy of the name. Of Scoti extra Scotiam agentes we do not here speak. Some remarkable divines Scotland has indeed possessed; but these were all adherents of that church, which for a season was established by the will of the monarch in opposition to the wishes of the nation. The two Forbeses, to say nothing of Leighton, Burnet, and Sage, were Episcopalians. In fact the want of popular support made it necessary for divines of that establishment to compensate by the strength of their theological learning for the weakness of their political position. The struggle which ensued between the Episcopal and Presbyterian parties was, from first to last, more a popular than a scientific-more a civil than a theological contest; and the Covenanters, whose zeal and fortitude finally wrought out the establishment of the religion and liberty of the nation, were unlearned as they were enthusiastic. With the triumph of the Presbyterian polity and doctrines, the controversy between the rival persuasions ceased. The Scottish Episcopalians were few in numbers, and long politically repressed; and the other separatists from the Establishment, so far from being, as in England, the enemies of the dominant church, were in reality its useful friends. They pitched in general somewhat higher the principles which they held in common with the Establishment;

and whereas in England the Dissenters would have radically destroyed what they condemned as vicious, in Scotland they wished only, as they in fact contributed, to brace what they viewed as relaxed. Thus, in Scotland, if sectarian controversy did not wholly cease, theological erudition was not required for its prosecution. The learning of the Dissenters did not put to shame the ignorance of the Establishment; and the people were so well satisfied with their own triumph and their adopted church, that its clergy had no call on them for an erudition, to illustrate what was already respected, or to vindicate what was not assailed. Even the attacks on Christianity, which were subsequently made in Scotland, and which it was therefore more immediately incumbent on the Scottish clergy to repel, were not such as it required any theological erudition to meet; while, from the religious dispositions of the public, these attacks remained always rather a scandal than a danger. At the same time, in no other country was there so little verge, far less encouragement, allowed to theological speculation. The standards of Scottish orthodoxy were more articulate and unambiguous than those of any other church; and to its members the permissible result of all inquiry was in proportion rigorously predetermined. Though often ignorantly mistaken, often intentionally misunderstood, the national creed could not, as in other countries, by any section of the established clergy, be either professedly abandoned or openly attacked. In religious controversy, popular opinion remained always the supreme tribunal; and a clamour, when this could be excited, was at once decisive of victory. At the same time the highest aim of clerical accomplishment was to preach a popular discourse. Under the former system of church patronage, this was always a principal condition of success; under the present it promises to be soon the only one. Theological learning remained thus superfluous, if not unsafe.

Nor, in the third place, must it be overlooked, that the laudable accommodation of the Scottish Church to its essential end-the religious instruction of the people-secured it consideration and usefulness without any high attainment in theological science. This, indeed, it neither felt as necessary, nor possessed the means of encouraging. Ecclesiastical property was fairly applied to ecclesiastical purposes; and the duties and salaries of the clergy were neither inadequately nor unequally apportioned. If the professional education of the churchman was defective, still it

was better than none. If not learned, he was rarely incompetent to parochial duties, which he could not neglect; while his religious and moral character were respectable and respected. The people

of Scotland were justly, at least in its earlier times, contented with their Church.

The

In the Church of England, on the contrary, the splendour of extraordinary learning was requisite to throw into the shade its manifold defects and abuses-its want of professional education, its pluralities, its sinecures, its non-residence, its princely pampering of the few, its beggarly starvation of the many. grosser the ignorance which it tolerated, the more distinguished must be the erudition which it encouraged; and in the distribution of its higher honours, the promotion of merit, in some cases, was even necessary to redeem the privilege of neglecting it in general. Thus the different circumstances of the two churches rendered the clergy of the one, neither ignorant nor learned; of the other, ignorant and learned at once.

The circumstance, however, of the most decisive influence on the erudition of a clergy is the quality and amount of the preparatory and professional education they receive. As almost exclusively bred in the cammon schools and universities of a country, and their necessary course of education being in general considerably longer than that of other learned professions, the clergy consequently express more fully and fairly than any other class the excellences and defects of the native seminaries. On the other hand, the quality and amount of their learning pincipally determine for good or evil the character of the whole education, public and private, of a country; for the clergy, or those trained for the church, constitute not only the most numerous body of literary men, but the class from which tutors, schoolmasters, and even professors, are principally taken. Their ignorance or erudition thus reacts most powerfully and extensively, either to raise and keep up learning, or to prevent its rising among all orders and professions. The standard of learning in a national clergy is, in fact, the standard of learning in a nation.

(From Discussions.)

« ElőzőTovább »