Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

As men, in proportion to their moral advancement, learn to enlarge the circle of their regards; as an exclusive affection for our relations, our clan, or our country, is a sure mark of an unimproved mind; so is that narrow and unchristian feeling to be condemned, which regards with jealousy the progress of foreign nations, and cares for no portion of the human race but that to which itself belongs. The detestable encouragement so long given to national enmities—the low gratification felt by every people in extolling themselves above their neighbours-should not be forgotten amongst the causes which have mainly obstructed the improvement of mankind.

• Exclusive patriotism should be cast off, together with the exclusive ascendency of birth, as belonging to the follies and selfishness of our uncultivated nature. Yet, strange to say, the former at least is upheld by men who not only call themselves Christians, but are apt to use the charge of irreligion as the readiest weapon against those who differ from them. So little have they learned of the spirit of that revelation, which taught emphatically the abolition of an exclusively national religion and a local worship, that so men, being all born of the same blood, might make their sympathies co-extensive with their bond of universal brotherhood.'-(Appendix to Thucydides, Vol. i.)

This scrupulousness of conscience is carried by him into the minutest details : and we have been rather amused to observe how he labours to disabuse his class, in these lectures, of the delusive notion that one Englishman can beat three Frenchmen; assuring us that we were quite as satisfactorily beaten by them, under William the Third and the Duke of Cumberland, as they by us under Marlborough and Wellington.

It is in a similar spirit that he warns readers of history against the ordinary seduction of favourite party names and watchwords, outliving the immediate occasion which gave birth to them.

• Tllis inattention to altered circumstances, which would make us be Guelfs in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, because the Guelf cause had been right in the eleventh or twelfth, is a fault of most universal application in all political questions, and is often most seriously mischievous. It is deeply seated in human nature, being in fact no other than an exemplification of the force of habit. It is like the case of a settler landing in a country overrun with wood and undrained, and visited, therefore, by excessive falls of rain. The evil of wet, and damp, and closeness, is besetting him on every side; he clears away the woods and drains his land, and by doing so mends both his climate and his own condition. Encouraged by bis success, he perseveres in his system ;clearing a country is with him synonymous with making it fertile and habitable; and he levels, or rather sets fire to, his forests without mercy. Meanwhile the tide has turned without his observing it ; he bas already cleared enough, and every additional clearance is a mischief; damp and wet are no longer the evils most to be dreaded, but excessive drought. The rains do not fall in sufficient quantity, the springs become low, the rivers become less and less fitted for navigation. Yet habit blinds him for a long while to the real state of the case, and he continues to encourage a coming mischief in his dread of one that has become obsolete. We have long been making progress on our present tack; yet if we do not go about now, we shall run ashore. Consider the popular feeling at this moment against capital punishments; what is it but continuing to burn the woods when the country actually wants shade and moisture? Year after year men talked of the severity of the penal code, and struzgled against it in vain. The feeling became stronger and stronger, and at last effected all, and more than all, which it had at first vainly demanded; yet still from mere habit it pursues its course, no longer to the restraining of legal cruelty, but to the injury of innocence and the encouragement of crime, and encouraging that worse eyil, a sympathy with wickedness justly punished, rather than with the law, whether of God or man, unjustly violated. So men have continued to cry out against the power of the Crown, after the Crown had been shackled hand an:l foot; and to express the greatest dread of popular violence, long after that violence was exhausted, and the anti-popular party was not only rallied, but hud turned the tide of battle, and was victoriously pressing upon its enemy.'-(P. 252.)

It is very unnecessary to add, after such comments as these, that Dr Arnold belonged to no party in Church or State. Under no circumstances could he have belonged to any: his independence of spirit, his almost over-refined delicacy of conscience, perhaps a certain restiveness of disposition when forced to travel in company, would alike have forbidden it. But as it was, he detested the spirit of party with a perfect abhorrence; he detested it as the great rival in the minds of men with the love of his idol, Truth. He never fails, on any occasion, to impress this aversion, in the strongest language, on all whom he addresses. It is a matter on which he admits of no compromise whatever; none of that specious rhetoric by which we persuade ourselves that party is an indifferent means of arriving at a good end—that only through becoming party men can we hope to be useful, and so forth. His plain language is, that all such pleas, and all such hopes, must be abandoned by the honest man-much more by

* Perhaps we may remark on this geographical illustration as suggesting some other of its author's peculiarities ;-his remarkable power of turning such illustrations to his purpose; and the readiness of his imagination to welcome the curious and marvellous in matters of fact. Many naturalists have thought this theory of the effect of the removal of forests on the amount of rain, carried much too far; and it would be difficult to point out an instance of a river which has become unnavigable in consequence of it. We might also refer to his strange views respecting animal magnetism and cognate matters.

the Christian. He had himself counted the cost, and made the sacrifice. He had fully reconciled himself to the apparent uselessness of a life unconnected with party in a country like this. At one period of his career, he was the subject of great unpopularity: his views were misrepresented, his character maligned, his professional success menaced; he only recovered himself

, after a long probation, by the great amiableness of his character, and through the fame acquired by his peculiar talent for instruction; for he was of no party, and consequently had no band of brothers to back him. Eminent in piety as in learning, he never attained a step in the Church ; for he was of no party, and had, therefore, no claim on any patron.. Yet there is nothing in his writings of the stoicism expressed in the stern

Taci, e lascia dir le genti,' of Dante; nothing of that querulousness we have often remarked in excellent men who have had the honesty to renounce party and its advantages for themselves, but are unreasonable enough to be disappointed that parties do not seek after and follow them. Vehement in self-defence-ardent in attack-fond by nature of controversial skirmishing-he is always in the field against some class of thinkers or other; and always seems very unaffectedly surprised that the opposite ranks which he alternately attacks remain alike unbroken by his artillery; and therefore it is no wonder, that while some were abusing him as a latitudinarian, others maintained that he was halfway on the road to modern • Catholicism. But the principles of his practical philosophy lay deep, and his equanimity was, therefore, not to be moved by the inevitable results of his own choice ;-a choice to which he elsewhere solemnly exhorts his young audience, in a passage which seems to breathe the very essence at once of his religious sincerity, and his manly integrity of soul.

• Be of one party to the death, and that is Christ's ; but abhor every other; abhor it, that is, as a thing to which to join yourselves ;—for every party is mixed up of good and evil, of truth and falsehood ; and in joining it, therefore, you join with the one as well as the other. If circumstances should occur which oblige you practically to act with any one party, as the least of two evils, then watch yourselves the more, lest the least of two evils should, by any means, commend itself at last to your mind as a positive good. Join it with a sad and reluctant heart, protesting against its evil, dreading its victory, far more pleased to serve it by suffering than by acting; for it is in Christ's cause only that we can act with heart and soul, as well as patiently and triumphantly suffer. Do this amidst reproach, and suspicion, and cold friendship, and zealous enmity; for this is the portion of those who seek to follow their Master, ind him only. Do it, although your foes be they of your own house

hold : those whom nature, or babit, or choice, had once bound to you most closely. And then you will understand how, even now, there is a daily cross to be taken up by those who seek not to please men, but God; yet you will learn no less, how that cross, meekly and firmly borne, wheiber it be the cross of men's ill opinion from without, or of our own evil nature struggled against within, is now, as ever, peace, and wisdom, and sanctification, and redemption, through Him who first bore it.'— (Sermons, vol. iii. 263.)

But Dr Arnold was a 'crotchety'man : such appears to have been the general estimate of his character. It is an epithet of many meanings; but it seems to us to be commonly and significantly applied to those who endeavour to ascertain the truth on every separate subject of enquiry, instead of following the ordinary process of taking up whole bundles of opinions as they are commonly found connected together. Whoever does this, is very certain to agree in some points with one party, and in some with another; and equally certain to be called crotchety by both. But we must say in justice, that the epithet does to a certain extent describe his character, in some of its minute peculiarities. There was a rapidity of judgment about him-a haste in arriving at conclusions, which is apt to lead to the sudden formation of opinions— possibly to a little fickleness, on minor points, in adherence to them. His judgment seems to have been influenced at once by an abhorrence of dogmatism, commonly so called, and an impatience of scepticism. We do not mean in a religious sense only, but in historical and every other research. He could not, like Montaigne, se reposer tranquillement sur l'oreiller du doute. He had a mind averse from suspense, dissatisfied and uveasy under the pressure of doubt; and, therefore, disposed to generalize at once, where slower and more cold-blooded men would consider the process of induction hardly begun. To this was joined a strong moral perception, and a disposition particularly inclined towards ethical speculation-towards predicating moral right and wrong of every phenomenon which human history and human nature exhibit : a peculiarity which he seems to us to have caught in great measure from association with his early friend Archbishop Whately, just as he caught his style of historical research from Niebuhr;—and a deep interest in the controversies of the day, with an eagerness to liberate his own mind by expressing his sentiments upon each of them. It is no disparagement of Dr Arnold to say, that this very eagerness sometimes appears to us to betray a secret uneasiness—a misgiving as to the results of his own conscientious enquiries. There are few, indeed, who, having deliberately rejected the idolatries of parties and systems, can rest undisturbedly on the ground they

6

have chosen for themselves; for such thinkers have nothing of the ready support on which others so confidently lean. They would be more than men, if there were not moments when the very foundations seem to give way under them, and their own hearts to sink also—moments when they are tempted even to look with envy on those who march forward sternly or cheerfully, looking neither to the right nor the left, through regions in which they stumble and grope for light; yet their victory is not the less complete, although the enjoyment of its fruits, like all human enjoyment, is interrupted by obstinate questionings of its own reality.

It is a curious result of these tendencies, that Dr Arnold should have gone so far out of his way as to subjoin to his Inaugural Lecture a special appendix on a subject certainly very remotely connected with the matters developed in it-namely, the refutation, by name, of the Archbishop of Dublin's views as to the separation of the duties of Church and State: and with him he has done us the honour to join ourselves, (alluding to an article in a late number of this Journal.) He endeavours to unite one half of the Archbishop of Dublin's theory with one • half of Mr Gladstone's : agreeing cordially with Mr Glad• stone in the moral theory of the State, and agreeing as cor

dially with the Archbishop in the Christian theory of the • Church; and deducing from the two the conclusion, that the

perfect State and the perfect Church are identical.' It seems to us that there are at least four theories afloat on this much debated subject. One is, that the authorities which we commonly term the Church' ought to decide circà sacra ; and that the authorities we call the State' have nothing to do but to enforce those decisions by civil penalties : this was the anciently received doctrine, so beautifully exemplified in the practice on the writ de hæretico comburendo. The next ascribes, if we may term it so, a sort of pre-existent harmony to Church and State; allotting to the State a power circà sacra, on a kind of assumption that it will proceed in harmony with the ecclesiastical authorities. The third is what, in the dictionary of theological hate, is called Erastian ; namely, that the State has absolute authority circà sacra, to be enforced by civil penalties, irrespectively of the deci. sions of ecclesiastical authorities; and this is Dr Arnold's. The fourth is, that the civil governor has no such authority whatever, either in his legislative or executive character, although he may occasionally lend his aid, with benefit, for the attainment of purely religious objects; and this appears to be the Archbishop of Dublin's. We are far from wishing to revive the controversy on our own account ; least of all, in commenting on the language

« AnkstesnisTęsti »