that Dr. Arnold should have gone so far out rushed into this as into other controver of his way as to subjoin to his Inaugural sies; and the tendency of his mind to rapid Lecture a special appendix on a subject cer- generalization. tainly very remotely connected with the Now, one fruitful parent of theories is, matters developed in it-namely, the refuta- the use of words (to employ a trite compation, by name, of the Archbishop of Dublin's rison) not as current coin, but as counters, views as to the separation of the duties of to which the reasoner may affix his own imChurch and State: and with him he has aginary value. The word "Church," is a done us the honor to join ourselves, (allud- very favorite counter with theorists; the ing to an article in a late number of this word "State," is another, of which the Journal.) He endeavors to unite "one half meaning is quite as arbitrary. Before we of the Archbishop of Dublin's theory with can ascertain the truth of the "moral theoone half of Mr. Gladstone's: agreeing cor- ry" of the State, we must understand what dially with Mr. Gladstone in the moral the- the State is. Now, Dr. Arnold's argument ory of the State, and agreeing as cordially seems to rest entirely on the assumption, with the Archbishop in the Christian theory that Government, State, and Nation may be of the Church; and deducing from the two used as synonymous terms. Grant him the conclusion, that the perfect State and this, and undoubtedly one great difficulty in the perfect Church are identical." It seems the way of his theory is removed. "When to us that there are at least four theories I speak of the Government," he says, “I afloat on this much debated subject. One am speaking of it as expressing the mind is, that the authorities which we commonly and will of the nation; and though a govterm "the Church" ought to decide circà ernment may not impose its own law, husacra; and that the authorities we call man or divine, upon an adverse people, yet a "the State" have nothing to do but to en- nation, acting through its government, may force those decisions by civil penalties; certainly choose for itself such a law as it this was the anciently received doctrine, so deems most for its good."-"In a corrupt beautifully exemplified in the practice on State, the government and people are whol the writ de hæretico comburendo. The next ly at variance; in a perfect State, they ascribes, if we may term it so, a sort of pre- would be wholly one; in ordinary States, existent harmony to Church and State; al- they are one more or less imperfectly."lotting to the State a power circa sacra, on " For the right of a nation over its own tera kind of assumption that it will proceed in ritory must be at least as absolute as that of harmony with the ecclesiastical authorities. any individual over his own house and land; The third is what, in the dictionary of the- and it surely is not an absurdity to suppose ological hate, is called Erastian; namely, that the voice of government can ever be the that the State has absolute authority circà voice of the nation; although they unhappisacra, to be enforced by civil penalties, irre- ly too often differ, yet surely they may conspectively of the decisions of ecclesiastical ceivably, and very often do in practice, comauthorities; and this is Dr. Arnold's. The pletely agree."-(P. 55.) Here the right of fourth is, that the civil governor has no a government to legislate circà sacra is such authority whatever, either in his legis- rested, where all men of reasonable views lative or executive character, although he must rest it, on its "expressing the will of may occasionally lend his aid, with benefit, the nation." Suppose the objector to take for the attainment of purely religious ob- the ground, that the government, in point of jects; and this appears to be the Archbishop fact, never does express the will of the naof Dublin's. We are far from wishing to tion except by accident; for that nine-tenths revive the controversy on our own account; of mankind are governed by rulers who rest least of all, in commenting on the language their authority on the principle, that they of an antagonist, whose pure and lofty cha- are not placed there to express, but to conrity of soul deprived his tenets, if erroneous trol, the will of the nation; while in those they be, of all the danger which commonly countries which are most democratically attend such error; and yet it is well to re-governed, the government can represent, at collect that even Dr. Arnold, with a spirit to which all religious despotism was abhorrent, was driven, by the force of his theory, to refuse to all avowed "unbelievers in Christ," a share in the legislature of a Christian country. Our object is much more to notice the peculiarities of the man, the eager, although tolerant, spirit with which he

best, only the numerical majority of the nation;-a majority which may, or may not, comprehend the religious or the intelligent portion of it; how is he to be answered on these premises? If the idea of a State could be realized with any reasonable probability, we can easily understand the value of a theory founded upon it-although actual States

of men, and only una sententia, if the minds of the 99,999,999 are wholly quiescent." He might also have remembered, that if "nearly unanimous consent" is conclusive for his views of a State, it is quite as conclusive against his views of a Church. We willingly quit so barren a subject; and could only wish that all who maintain similar views, whether on Dr. Arnold's or any other premises, would represent to themselves and their readers their main position in its literal sense; namely, that it is the chief duty of the existing governor of every existing State, whether King or Majority, to take care of the spiritual welfare of every citizen. We by no means assert that they would change their opinions, but merely that they would see the subject in a very different light, if it were once freed from the endless fallacies of general words. When it was represented to the Emperor Ferdinand II., that the course which he was pursuing towards the Protestants of Bohemia, would render that kingdom a desert, his answer was, "malumus regnum vastatum quàm damnatum." All we contend is, that on Dr. Arnold's principles it is impossible to prove

might be but imperfect agents to carry it out; but if the idea is one which history and common sense alike show us can never be realized at all, we do not understand how the theory can stand alone. In fact, Dr. Arnold seems elsewhere to admit that his principle goes no further than this-that "the favorite objections against the State's concerning itself with religion, apply no less to the theory of a Church..... The moral theory of a State is not open to the objection commonly brought against our actual constitution, namely, that Parliament is not a fit body to legislate on matters of religion; for the council of a really Christian State would consist of Christians at once good and sensible, quite as much as the council of a really Christian Church."-(P. 63.) Now, since we may very safely assume, that since Christendom began there has never been any thing approaching to a "really Christian State"-since we may safely foretell that there never will be, until the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of the Lord-this comparison seems to reduce the whole to a question of expediency; whether, upon the whole, it is best that the spiritual government of man- that the Emperor was wrong. kind should be left to those authorities As a more interesting specimen of his whom we commonly term the Church, un-style of writing and turn of thought, we armed with coercive power, or to the tem- would select his views on certain points of poral government which possesses it. Dr. military morality, in which he runs as boldArnold preferred the latter; and he had a ly into opposition to a host of commonly perfect right to do so; but not to erect his received and current notions, as he does, own preference into an axiom. He consid- at other times, in questions of more ordinaered the Church "a society far worse gov-ry controversy. Nothing is more customerned than most States." It may be so; but other political philosophers may think that most States are, upon the whole, worse governed than the Church; and who is to decide between them?

And some may be disposed to think, that it was the weakness of the position which he had undertaken to maintain, which drove him to put forward such paradoxes as that excommunication is a temporal punishment, (p. 57;) or, still more unworthy of himself, such vulgar arguments as that of the "almost unanimous consent of all writers on government, whether heathen or Christian, down to the 18th century." Dr. Arnold, of all men, ought to have been best aware, that on the great questions which concern the government of mankind, so long as the consent of all writers is nearly unanimous, it is worthless. Consent is worthless, until people begin to think; and thought is only provoked by opposition. Quot homines tot sententia, as he elsewhere says, "holds good only where there is any thinking at all: otherwise there may be an hundred millions

ary than to speak in tones of praise of the conduct of citizens in assuming arms as volunteers, and rising en masse; or enrolling in guerilla-parties, to repel foreign invasion. And it seems to be rather a prevalent idea, that in proportion as nations approach more nearly to the idea of free civil government, they acquire an organization for the purpose of self-defence, which will eventually render military strength of no avail, and abolish standing armies. Not a few visionaries of our time have foretold the euthanasia of the modern military system, in this general arming of all classes;-the advent of the day, in the language of the clever dreamer De Vigny, when uniforms will be ridiculous, and regular war obsolete. And, whether they consider such anticipations fanciful or not, most politicians seem to assume that their realization would be a step in the social progress of the world. Dr. Arnold's views were widely different. And, as his manner was, his imagination being strongly impressed with certain evils inherent in the system of irregular warfare, he

could not stop short of wholesale and abso- necessarily of the legitimate object of war; they lute condemnation of it

may be considered as a security taken for the time to come. Yet, undoubtedly, the shock to the in"The truth is, that if war, carried on by regular habitants of the particular countries so invaded is armies under the strictest discipline, is yet a great very great; it was not a light thing for the Canaevil, an irregular partizan warfare is an evil ten dian, or the inhabitant of Trinidad, or of the Cape times more intolerable; it is in fact no other than of Good Hope, to be severed from the people of his to give a license to a whole population to commit own blood and language, from his own mother all sorts of treachery, rapine, and cruelty, without state, and to be subjected to the dominion of forany restraint; letting loose a multitude of armed eigners-men with a strange language, strange men, with none of the obedience and none of the manners, a different church, and a different law. honorable felings of a soldier; cowardly because That the inhabitants of such countries should enthey are undisciplined, and cruel because they are list very zealously in the militia, and should place cowardly. It seems, then, the bounden duty of the resources of defence very readily in the hands every government, not only not to encourage such of the government, is quite just and quite their duirregular warfare on the part of its population, but ty. I am only deprecating the notion that they carefully to repress it; and to oppose its enemy should rise in irregular warfare, each man or each only with its regular troops, or with men regularly village for itself, and assail the invaders as their organized, and acting under authorized officers, personal enemies, killing them whenever and who shall observe the ordinary humanities of civil- wherever they can find them. Or, again, suppose ized war. And what are called patriotic insurrec- that the invasion is undertaken for the purpose of tions, or irregular risings of the whole population overthrowing the existing government of a counto annoy an invading army by all means, ought try, as the attempted French descents to co-oper impartially to be condemned by whomsoever and ate with the Jacobites, or the invasion of France by against whomsoever practised, as a resource of the coalescing powers in 1792 and 1793, and again small and doubtful efficacy, but full of certain atro-in 1814 and 1815. When the English army adcity, and a most terrible aggravation of the evils of war. Of course, if an invading army sets the example of such irregular warfare; if they proceed, after the manner of the ancients, to lay waste the country in mere wantonness-to burn houses, and to be guilty of personal outrages on the inhabitants, then they themselves invite retaliation, and a guerilla warfare against such an invader becomes justifiable. But our censure in all cases should have reference, not to the justice of the original war, which is a point infinitely disputable, but to the simple question-which side first set the example of departing from the laws of civilized warfare, and of beginning a system of treachery and atrocity?

vanced into France in 1814, respecting persons and property, and paying for every article of food which they took from the country, would it have been for the inhabitants to barricade every village, to have lurked in every thicket, and behind every wall, to shoot stragglers and sentinels, and keep up, night and day, a war of extermination? If, indeed, the avowed object of the invader be the destruction, not of any particular government, but of the national existence altogether; if he thus disclaims the usual object of legitimate war-a fair and lasting peace and declares that he makes it a war of extermination, he doubtless cannot complain if the usual laws of war are departed from against him, when he himself sets the example."As this is a matter of some importance, I may But, even then, when we consider what unspeaka be allowed to dwell a little longer upon a vague ble atrocities a partizan warfare gives birth to, and notion, not uncommonly, as I believe, entertained, that no nation attacked by an overwhelming force that a people whose country is attacked, by which of disciplined armies was ever saved by such is meant, whose territory is the seat of war, are means, it may be doubted, even then, whether it sustaining some intolerable wrong which they are be justifiable, unless the invader drives the inhabijustified in repelling by any and every means. But tants to it, by treating them from the beginning as in the natural course of things, war must be carried enemies, and outraging their persons and property, on in the territory of one belligerent or of the other; If this judginent seem extreme to any one, I would it is an accident merely, if their fighting ground only ask him to consider well, first, the cowardly, happen to be the country of some third party. treacherous, and atrocious character of all guerilla Now, it cannot be said that the party which acts warfare; and in the next place the certain misery on the offensive, war having been once declared, which it entails on the country which practises it, becomes in the wrong by doing so, or that the ob- and its inefficacy, as a general rule to conquer or ject of all invasion is conquest; you invade your expel an enemy, however much it may annoy enemy in order to compel him to do you justice-him."-P. 204.

that is, to force him to make peace on reasonable This is only one instance, among many, terms. This is your theory of the case, and it is one which must be allowed to be maintainable, of the tendency of which we have spoken, just as much as that of your enemy; for all laws to deduce general lessons from every class of war waive, and must waive the question as to the of facts which the writer is engaged in inoriginal justice of the quarrel-they assume that vestigating. And it appears to form, acboth parties are equally in the right. But suppose in-cording to his view, an essential part of the vasion for the sake of conquest, I do not say of the duties of an historian, that he should be whole of your enemy's country, but of that portion of it which you are invading; as we have many times invaded French colonies with a view to their incorporation permanently with the British dominions. Conquests of such a sort are no violations

ready at all moments to adapt his interences from ancient experience to the particu lar questions which agitate his own age-to make the present and the past mutually il

lustrate each other. Such, at least, is the great charm of reality; and which, if I may judge meaning we ascribe to the following re-by my own experience, is read at first with intermarkable passage, in which he lays down est, and retains its hold firmly on the memory." broadly the difference between the antiquary and the historian.

-P. 108.

what has been called the philosophy of history, than history itself. And it would assuredly require a very severe and vigorous judgment-indeed, a greater degree of impartiality and inaccessibility to passion and prejudice than we can fairly expect from man-for a historian, who has the present full in sight, and strongly exciting his imagination, to be calm and just in his review of the past. Mitford's History of Greece may, for aught we know, be an at

If the meaning of this passage only were, that the historian is better qualified for his "What is it that the mere antiquarian wants, task whose mind is rich in the knowledge and which the mere scholar wants also; so that of the world he lives in, (which seems to satire, sagacious enough in detecting the weak points of every character, has often held them both have been a part at least of Dr. Arnold's up to ridicule? They have wanted what is the conception, from the instance he afterwards essential accompaniment to all our knowledge of gives of Sir Walter Raleigh,) no one could the past, a lively and extensive knowledge of the hesitate to admit its truth. But if it is present; they wanted the habit of continually meant that a good historian must also be viewing the two in combination with each other; interested in modern controversies, and they wanted that master-power which enables us make his history subservient to the object to take a point from which to contemplate both at a distance, and so to judge of each and of both, as of influencing the convictions of his readers if we belonged to neither. For it is from the views respecting them, it may, perhaps, be quesso obtained from the conclusions so acquired-tioned whether he is not rather describing that the wisdom is formed which may really assist in shaping and preparing the course of the future. "Antiquarianism, then, is the knowledge of the past enjoyed by one who has no lively knowledge of the present. Thence it is, when concerned with great matters, a dull knowledge. It may be lively in little things; it may conceive vividly the shape and color of a dress, or the style of a building, because no man can be so ignorant as not to have a distinct notion of these in his own times; he must have a full conception of the coat he wears and the house he lives in. But the past is reflected to us by the present; so far as we see and understand the present, so far we can see and under-tractive work, and so may Cobbett's Histostand the past; so far, but no farther. And this is ry of the Reformation; but, after all, the the reason why scholars and antiquarians, nay, and interest they excite is much the same with men calling themselves historians also, have writ- that of a clever political pamphlet. But it ten so uninstructively of the ancient world; they could not be said of Gibbon, Hume, or Robcould do no otherwise, for they did not understand ertson, or Ranke, or even Dr. Arnold's great the world around them. How can he comprehend the parties of other days who has no clear notion master Niebuhr, that they display the habit of those of his own? What sense can he have of of continually viewing the past in combinathe progress of the great contest of human affairs tion with the present; and yet, who will in its earlier stages, when it rages around him at venture to call them mere antiquarians ?this actual moment unnoticed, or felt to be no more Histories such as theirs have all the excelthan a mere indistinct hubbub of sounds and con-lence which belongs to the ablest order of fusion of weapons? What cause is at issue in the conversation;-where the speaker, while combat, he knows not. Whereas, on the other he condenses the information which he has hand, he who feels his own times keenly, to whom

amples of the kind—would rather resemble the brilliant talk of very elever speakers, who cannot tell us what we want to know without adorning the narration with infer ences and illustrations drawn from a hundred distant sources.

they are a positive reality, with a good and evil to impart, leaves, at the same time, gracedistinctly perceived in them, such a man will fully but incidentally, the impression of the write a lively and impressive account of past times, fulness of his knowledge on other subjects. even though his knowledge be insufficient and his History, such as Dr. Arnold would prefer it prejudices strong. This, I think, is the merit of-and his own historical works afford exMitford, and it is a great one. His very anti-Jacobin partialities, much as they have interfered with the fairness of his history, have yet completely saved it from being dull. He took an interest in the parties of Greece, because he was alive to the parties of his own time; he described the popular party in Athens just as he would have described the Whigs of England; he was unjust to Demos. thenes because he would have been unjust to Mr. Fox. His knowledge of the Greek language was limited, and so was his learning altogether; but because he was an English gentlemen who felt and understood the state of things around him, and entered warmly into its parties, therefore he was able to write a history of Greece, which has the

true historical character, the following We prefer, to this attempt to fix the pointed sketch of the characteristics of style in different historians; and its importance as an indication of the degree of value to be reposed in them as authorities. Any reader who is conversant with this branch

of literature, will readily find names to fit | his, in respect of all those higher qualities the following characters:

"The main thing to look to is, of course, his work itself. Here the very style gives us an impression by no means to be dismissed. If it is very heavy and cumbrous, it indicates either a dul man or a pompous man, or at least a slow and awkward inan; if it be tawdry, and full of commonplaces enunciated with great solemnity, the writer is most likely a silly man; if it be highly antithetical, and full of unusual expressions, or artificial ways of stating a plain thing, the writer is clearly an affected man. If it be plain and simple -always clear, but never eloquent-the writer may be a very sensible man, but is too hard and dry to be a very great man. If, on the other hand, it is always eloquent, rich in illustrations, full of animation, but too uniformly so, and without the relief of simple and quiet passages, we must admire the writer's genius in a very high degree; but we may fear that he is too continually excited to have at tained to the highest wisdom, for that is necessarily calm. In this manner the mere language of an historian will furnish us with something of a key to his mind; and will tell us, or at least give us cause to presume in what his main strength lies, and in what he is deficient."-P. 381.

which we have endeavored faintly to delineate. Men who can follow truth with a devotion so exclusive as to leave room for no other idol-men who can enter eagerly into all the great controversies of their day, and yet allow no exclusive sect or faction the honor of counting them as adherents-men who do not shun the entanglements of party spirit from cowardice or from apathy, but who resist it as a temptation, and despise it as a weakness-men whose whole life and conversation bear testimony to the deep importance they attach to religious truth, and yet free from every taint of controversial unfairness and theological rancor,—such men are scarce and precious in all times, and the absorbing nature of our party interests seems to render them scarcer every day. But at present, we are only regarding the promise which he was giving of a scarcely inferior kind of usefulness, in helping to turn, if possible, the very mischievous direction which has been given to youthful thought and enterprise of late years, and especially in his university.

We cannot place the distinction between the antiquary and historian exactly where Dr. Arnold places it; but without endea- Almost every one has taken an interest in voring at present to establish another, it is the recent theological controversies which enough to say that the attempt to draw it is have had their birth in Oxford; few have very characteristic of the writer. The faults looked to the effect which the controversial of his manner (for such we would call them, spirit has produced on the tone and characif faults they are, rather than faults of ter of that university as regards its primary style, which in all his writings is good) object-education. When first the theologarise from over-eagerness in illustration ical movement' began that is to say, and comparison. If blemishes in historical about ten years ago there was excited at composition, they are peculiar merits in the the same time in both universities, but work of education. They are among the especially in Oxford, a strong feeling of talents by which he was so eminently suc- dissatisfaction with the existing studies and cessful in exciting the enthusiasm of the occupations of the place. It was the comyoung, in the studies to which he directed mon language of all those who deemed that them. What we may term the youthful- the frame and temper of society needed an ness of his manner-his luxuriant discur- extensive renovation, that this renovation siveness, when a passage in Livy invites must begin with the young. The presumphim to a discussion of the physical geo-tuous turn of mind, the reliance on intelgraphy of the Roman Campagna, or a lectual ability, supposed to result from inchapter of Thucydides to speculations on the politics of modern republics ;-this constituted its great charm to the temper of younger men.

struction addressing itself to the intellect alone, were to be corrected by a strong diversion in favor of a more subjective course of study. The student was to be imbued with principles and tastes, rather than posi

And, therefore, those very qualities which possibly detracted from his excel-tive acquirements. The main object of the lence in the sober character of a historian, were such as to render him the most effective and useful of teachers in a lectureroom. This is one of the many respects in which his loss must be felt, and felt as at present irreparable, in that university to which he had been, for so brief a space, attached as a Professor. Not Oxford only, but England, has need of minds such as

instructor was to be the formation of moral character by habit, not the imparting of what is commonly called learning. Nay, much was to be unlearnt-much rubbish taken down before men could begin afresh on the old foundations-much of the sciolism of recent centuries removed;-natural science and literary acquirement to be brought down from that undue exaltation to