ARCHBISHOP WHATELY.

THE late Archbishop of Dublin was, if we compare him with his equals in position and his fellow-labourers in the Church, not only a very conspicuous, but a very remarkable man, full of manly ability, intellectual acuteness, pertinent learning, didactic gifts, and honest convictions. There was, and is still, on the episcopal Bench certainly one, and probably more than one, superior to him in learning and cultivated judgment ; one or two who were more than his match in eloquence and diplomatic skill ; and there have been several with greater abilities as ecclesiastical statesmen and administrators of Church property and influence. But it would be difficult, taking all his qualifications together, to name his superior in liberal feeling, practical learning, didactic zeal, and hearty, if somewhat utilitarian, piety. And yet there is some sense of dissonance in connecting his intellectual character with his actual work in life. We habitually think of his prompt and somewhat abrupt intelligence, his sententious criticism, his keen logic, his contemptuous sense, his skilful argumentative strategy, as better suited to the press than the pulpit. The clean-cut reason- ing of his " Cautions for the Times" would have me laded into admirable " leaders" in a religious newspaper, neither gol:Ig back too deep into general principles nor ignoring them too n.such ;. and his adroit and neatly fitted illustrations would have rendered them as striking to the public as they would have been ingenious to thinkers. His power of condensing the impressive points of a case was little less remarkable than Paley's. His tact in preparing his readers for intellectual dis- appointment, in making them feel that all the fault of it lay in their own foolish and extravagant expectations, till at last be- had browbeaten them into gratitude for any fragments of intel- lectual satisfaction he had reserved, was, at least, as great as the old Archdeacon of Carlisle's. All those—and they must be many— who have as children learnt their " easy lessons " from the Arch- bishop's manuals, must have experienced the sensation of being held as in a vice between his sharp alternatives and clearly pointed. dilemmas,—not without a vague hope that " when they were big " they might, perhaps, discover some way to throw off the intellectual yoke. The keen humour and strong judgment shown in others of Dr. Whately's works were, like all these qualities, even better suited_ to the press than the pulpit ; and, on the other hand, the Arch- bishop seems to us to have been somewhat out of place in bearing witness, to the natural and intellectual world, of the supernatural and spiritual.

Not, indeed, that there were many of his right reverend or most reverend brethren who seemed better qualified for this duty. Few bishops in any communion seem half as well fitted for representing the supernatural world to the natural as they do for the converse duty, if such a duty there were, of representing the natural and visible world in the Court of the invisible and supernatural. Who does not feel how much more admirably Cardinal Wiseman could plead the case of mundane ideas to the supra-mundane, than he seems, to the eyes of strangers at least, to succeed in his spiritual embassy to this world ? Who would not trust the Bishop of Exeter better to explain the wise complexities of ecclesiastical law to the astonished saints than to teach saintliness to ecclesiastics? If we except such men as Fenelon, Berkeley, Butler, Heber, and their successors to the number of, perhaps at most, two or three bishops in a generation, it might always be said that the Bench of Bishops would be one of the best delegations we could possibly send to explain the views of the respectable conservative opulence of this world to the saintly radicalism of those who are absolutely "not of this world." But the late Archbishop of Dublin was not of this type. He was not at all a worldly man, though he was by no means of the order of the Fenelons, or Butlers. Yet valuable as was his archiepiscopal service in Ireland, especially in the work of education, we can- not help thinking of a " a square peg in a round hole " when we- first read his manifold acute and ingenious writings, and then. think of his position at the head of a missionary clergy in a country of alien faith. That he was absolutely free from bigotry, indeed, and devoted to the cause of liberal education, was no slight

recommendation. But that he had in him any spiritual fire capable of communicating itself to those not of his own faith,— any yearning of heart after the poor sheep scattered abroad, either shepherdless or perhaps sometimes worse than shepherdless, over that unfortunate island, it would not be easy to maintain. Even this would have gone without remark in some of his brethren, whose characters at once formal and formless,—naturally shapeless, shaped only by circumstances,—would not seem more out of place here than there,—being in place nowhere. But Dr. Whately's character was strong and strongly marked. We feel there was some niche in the nation that was above all others fitted for it. We do not feel that that niche was the head of a church, especially a missionary Church.

And yet Dr. Whately's interests were always centred in what are usually called the moral sciences, that is, the sciences con- cerning themselves with man as man, not with nature—the meta- physical, logical, social, and political sciences. And these, one would think, if traced to their roots, would lead a deep thinker into the confines between the divine and the human. Dr. Whately, however, though a strong, was not a deep thinker. He had an Aristotelian pleasure in classifying accurately, a Baconian pleasure in bringing these classifications to bear shrewdly on the business of life, a Paleyan pleasure in economizing divine power by creating round the Christian faith the most formidable of earthworks, and resting thereon its impregnability against ordinary scepticism ; but in the Archbishop's intellect scarcely less than in Aristotle's, there was a great gulf fixed between the moral sciences and their ultimate supernatural assumptions. The former were as much as possible arranged so as to look complete in themselves, and disgu% .e the necessity for a flual spring across a chasm to which O. ore was no bridge. His treatise on "Logic," so neat in arriaearance, has all the effect of fitting on to the intellect a suit of ready-made clothes ; and many is the student who has wondered where it grew from, and how the mind had managed to " secrets " it all,—points on which the Archbishop throws no tingle ray of light. His political discussions always fill you with

fresh surprise, that Church and State, defined as he defines them, should have had any root at all in human society, or that their actual roots should ever be capable of bearing the very different graft which he proposes to graft upon them. And his

"-theology is more remarkable for warning you off any attempt to know God, than for teaching you that highest of sciences. Like

Mr. Mansel in more recent years, Dr. Whately long ago taught us in the note to his "Logic' on the word " Person," that " to require explanation of what God is in Himself, is to attempt what is beyond the reach of the human faculties, and foreign to the apparent design of Scripture revelation ; which seems to be chiefly, if not wholly, to declare to us . . . . with a view to our practical benefit, and to the influencing of our feelings and con-

duct, net so much the intrinsic nature of the Deity as what He is relatively to us ;" in other words, that theology is a delusion, the only purpose of revelation being to produce an effect on human -feelings,—which effect, by the way, would fail to be produced, if it were admitted from the beginning that revelation is not the removal of a veil from God, but the beneficent tuning of human thoughts and nerves. We may say of Dr. Whately's theology

as Dr. Newman wrote in "Loss and Gain" of one of his fictitious characters—meant probably for a cross between Dr. Whately and Dr. Hampden, — " The Rev. Dr. Brownside, the new Deal of Nottingham, some time IIuntingdonian Professor of Divinity, and one of the acutest, if not the soundest academical thinker of the day ;"—" Revelation to him, instead of being the abyss of God's counsels, with its dim outlines and broad shadows, was a flat sunny plain, laid out with straight macadamized roads.

Not, of course, that he denied the Divine incomprehensibility itself with certain heretics of old ; but he maintained that in Revelation all that was mysterious had been left out, and nothing given us except what was practical and directly concerned us." So far from denying Go l's incomprehensibility, Dr. Whately strenuously maintains it as a reason for addressing ourselves, not to the appre- hension of Him, but to the mastery of a few clearly defined intel- lectual posturesare the best pleasing to Him.

Dr. 11Vhately's greatest powers were never shown, as it seems to us, as an archbishop at all. His cleverest books were his little satirical treatises mocking the German school of criticism, —his wisest and best, we think, his shrewd comments on, and illustrations of, the wisdom of Bacon. The " Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte," and " Historic Certainties re- specting the Early History of America," are master-pieces of

ingenuity and of a certain kind of intellectual humour. They do not prove quite so much as their author, perhaps, supposed.

They only do prove that it is exceedingly easy to pick out un- answerable objections even to a true history, if that history be related in the brief matter-of-fact form of annals, like many of the books of the Old Testament. But if we look at these little books not as justifications of every doubtful history, but as warn- ings against the rash spirit of " the higher criticism," they are

certainly complete. For instance, we need only give the opening of the second feu d'esprit, — in which it will be seen at once that the history of the French revolution is narrated, the names being all spelt backwards, Niatirb for " Britain," Egroeg for " George," Ecnarf for " France," Sivol for " Louis" :— " In the days of Egroeg king of Niatirb did king Sivol reign over Ecnarf, oven as his fathers had reigned before him. The same was a just man and merciful. And the people, even the Ecnarfites, came and stood before Sivol, and said, Behold thy fathers made our yoke very grieVeus ; now therefore make thou the heavy yoke of thy fathers, which they put upon us, lighter; and give us statutes and ordinances that be righteous, like unto those of Niatirb, and we will serve thee. And the king did as they required. Then the Ecnarfites laid hands on king Sivol, and slew him, and all his house, and all his great men, as many as they could find. But some fled in ships, and gat them away to Niatirb, and dwelt in Niatirb. And the Ecnarfites said, 'Let us now have no king, neither ruler over us, but let us do every one as seemeth right in his own eyes; then shall we be free, and we will set free the other nations also.' Then the king of Niatirb, and divers other kings, even the chief among all the rulers of Eporue, made war with one accord against the Ecnarfites, because they had slain the king ; for they said, Lest our people also slay us."

How happily Dr. Whately comments on this narrative any one who knows him will easily imagine, even if he does not remember. He shows that it is plainly the work of a Niatirbite, written in

the design of exalting Niatirb, since it states first that Sivol was a just king, although he ruled " even as his fathers ruled ;" next that his fathers had ruled unjustly ; and, lastly, that Sivol, for importing the so-called improvements of the kingdom of Niatirb, was, in fact, put to death by his people. What can be clearer than the in- ference that the Niatirbite chronicler, contrary to all truth, is obviously glorifying the despotic Niatirbite institutions at the expense of the more popular and just Ecnarfite institutions ? In this strain of happy irony, full of fresh surprises, Dr. Whately takes off the spirit of the "higher criticism."

But clever as this is, it does not represent the shrewdest and soundest side of the Archbishop's mind. His edition of Bacon's "essays," is, we think, clearly his best book,—for his intellect is never so sound as when, taking its stand on the level of another's admitted wisdom, it points out the more modern applications and distinctions which are suggested by the facts of his own social experience. It is impossible to give adequate illustrations, for it is of the very essence of these comments to embody shrewd insulated observations; but the following is a fair specimen of the sort of remark -which abounds every- where in this series of sagacious notes. It is in the notes on Bacon's essay, entitled " Of Wisdom for a Man's Self :"—

" It is worth remarking that there is one point wherein some branches of the law differ from others, and agree with some professions of a totally different class. Superior ability and professional skill, in a Judge, or a conveyancer, are, if combined with integrity, a public benefit. They confer a service on certain individuals, not at the expense of any others; and the death or retirement of a man thus qualified is a loss to the community. And the same may be said of a physician, a manufac- turer, a navigator, &c., of extraordinary ability. A pleader, on the contrary, of powers far above the average, is not, as such, serviceable to the public. Ho obtains wealth and credit for himself and his family; but any special advantage accruing from his superior ability, to those who chance to be his clients, is just so much loss to those he chances to be opposed to ; and which party is, on each occasion, in the right, must be regarded as an even chance."

There is nothing very striking in this alone ; but observation of this sort is to be found on almost every page, and the number of such remarks shows Dr. Whately's intellect in its strongest light. He had the quickest of eyes for seeing the application of any acute observation to a great number of different practical situations. He gave one the impression of a mind which did not feed on its own convictions, but ranged somewhat restlessly about in search of new distinctions and applications,—a sort of Aristotle-

Paley, taking distinctions with cold Aristotelian sharpness, using them as utilitarian ammunition against doubts or abuses with ready Paleyan dexterity. And even his humour con- sisted in the unexpected application of such principles as he had deduced from theory to practical life, or the prompt re- cognition of such facts as he had observed in practical life within the doctrine of a new theory,—as when, in examining some lad, he asked him to decline "cat," interrupting him when he got to " Vocative—oh cat !" with " Pooh ! whoever heard of saying, Oh cat, come to your milk!'"—of course, " Vocative—puss !"

We should be doing Dr. Whately a great wrong if we led our readers to suppose that he had no deep religions feeling and con- viction. We believe that his piety was very fervent, though it declined to drink except at a few and rather limited intellectual fountains. He was a hearty friend and a just man, once only betrayed by his dislike to his friend's, Mr. Blanco White's rationalizing views, and the fear of being publicly identified with them, into an act of injustice to Mr. White's memory and his biographer. He was one of the most disinterested of ecclesi- astical rulers—and that not for want of personal motive to befriend his own acquaintances, for though his manner was rough his heart was very tender—those, for instance, who saw him at the ordina- tion of the son of one of his oldest friends reporting how his eyes actually rained tears on the young man's head. In a word, Dr. Whately was a good man of very strong intellect, who combined much of the eighteenth century's theology and philosophy with a warm heart and an acute eye,—not an ideal archbishop, but a shrewd and learned lay-teacher on the Bench,—which is a species of archbishop very superior to the ordinary sacerdotal breed, though, no doubt, inferior to the very highest.