The Scottish Philosophy [210]
others being Walter Scott and Francis Jeffrey. He would have been constrained to complete his philosophical reading, and thoroughly work out his system, and might have left works worthy of being ranked with those of Reid, Stewart, and Hamilton, though not equal to the first and last of these in originality. But he is sucked back into the amenities of London society and the agitations of politics.
He was the favorite of every society he entered, by his good-nature, his urbanity, his extensive knowledge, his keen sense of the ludicrous, his pleasant humor, his good-natured wit, and his profound wisdom. As a parliamentary orator, he was thoughtful, always thoughtful; and thoughtful bearers were pleased to notice that he was evidently thinking as he spoke. His speeches had also the charm of elegant diction and brilliant illustration. But for popular effect they were too candid, and wanted coarseness, invective, satire, and passion. His whig friends never made him a member of the cabinet, and Sir James Scarlet commented: "There is a certain degree of merit which is more convenient for reward than the highest." The students of Glasgow University paid him an appropriate honor when they elected him lord rector. At length be set {354} himself vigorously to write a history of England. The work is calm, candid, full of fine generalizations and analyses of character; but wants liveliness of narrative, and a searching detection of motives, especially bad motives, -- he was too charitable, or, rather, too genial, to believe in human wickedness. His greatest work might have been a " History of the Revolution in England," as he had such a sympathy with the wisdom and moderation of the event , but he left the book unfinished. He was persuaded with some difficulty to write a " Dissertation of the Progress of Ethical Philosophy," for a new edition of the " Encyclopedia Britannica." He took an active part in promoting Catholic emancipation and the Reform Bill. He was now evidently hastening to fulfil the grand work which he had allotted to himself. But he was seized with illness ere he completed it. He had not identified himself much with the religion of Jesus in his life, but he turned to it at his dying hours. His son reports: " He would speak of God with more reverence and awe than I have almost ever met with." "Our Lord Jesus was very frequently the subject of his thoughts; he seemed often perplexed and unable to comprehend much of his history. He once said to me: 'It is a great mystery to me, -- I cannot understand it.' " " His difficulty lay in the account given of the manner in which he became the Saviour of men." " I said to him at one time: 'Jesus Christ loves you;' he answered slowly and pausing between each word: `Jesus Christ -- love -- the same thing.' After a long silence, he said: `I believe-' We said, in a voice of inquiry: 'In God?' He answered: ' In Jesus.' He spoke but once more after this."
We have very imperfect means of knowing what his philosophy would have been had he fully formed it. We can judge of it only by the skeleton of his lectures at Haileybury, preserved in the Memoir, and by his historical and critical dissertation in the Encyclopaedia. He has a clear idea of the end to be served by ethical science " Not what, but what . Here a new world opens on the mind: the word, the idea, has no resemblance to any object of natural science; no more than colors to sound, not so much. Both are phenomena. The question by what rules the voluntary actions of men ought to be governed. This important word ought, which represents no fact, is yet intelligible to all mankind; a correspondent term in {355} every language, -- the terms `right,' `wrong,' `moral,' `immoral,' `duty,' `crime,' `virtue,' `vice,' `merit,' `demerit,' distinguished and contrasted." He has evidently kept three ends before him in his " Dissertation: " The progress of the science, especially during the two previous centuries a critical examination of the more eminent ethical writers and an exposition of his own views.
He was the favorite of every society he entered, by his good-nature, his urbanity, his extensive knowledge, his keen sense of the ludicrous, his pleasant humor, his good-natured wit, and his profound wisdom. As a parliamentary orator, he was thoughtful, always thoughtful; and thoughtful bearers were pleased to notice that he was evidently thinking as he spoke. His speeches had also the charm of elegant diction and brilliant illustration. But for popular effect they were too candid, and wanted coarseness, invective, satire, and passion. His whig friends never made him a member of the cabinet, and Sir James Scarlet commented: "There is a certain degree of merit which is more convenient for reward than the highest." The students of Glasgow University paid him an appropriate honor when they elected him lord rector. At length be set {354} himself vigorously to write a history of England. The work is calm, candid, full of fine generalizations and analyses of character; but wants liveliness of narrative, and a searching detection of motives, especially bad motives, -- he was too charitable, or, rather, too genial, to believe in human wickedness. His greatest work might have been a " History of the Revolution in England," as he had such a sympathy with the wisdom and moderation of the event , but he left the book unfinished. He was persuaded with some difficulty to write a " Dissertation of the Progress of Ethical Philosophy," for a new edition of the " Encyclopedia Britannica." He took an active part in promoting Catholic emancipation and the Reform Bill. He was now evidently hastening to fulfil the grand work which he had allotted to himself. But he was seized with illness ere he completed it. He had not identified himself much with the religion of Jesus in his life, but he turned to it at his dying hours. His son reports: " He would speak of God with more reverence and awe than I have almost ever met with." "Our Lord Jesus was very frequently the subject of his thoughts; he seemed often perplexed and unable to comprehend much of his history. He once said to me: 'It is a great mystery to me, -- I cannot understand it.' " " His difficulty lay in the account given of the manner in which he became the Saviour of men." " I said to him at one time: 'Jesus Christ loves you;' he answered slowly and pausing between each word: `Jesus Christ -- love -- the same thing.' After a long silence, he said: `I believe-' We said, in a voice of inquiry: 'In God?' He answered: ' In Jesus.' He spoke but once more after this."
We have very imperfect means of knowing what his philosophy would have been had he fully formed it. We can judge of it only by the skeleton of his lectures at Haileybury, preserved in the Memoir, and by his historical and critical dissertation in the Encyclopaedia. He has a clear idea of the end to be served by ethical science " Not what