Divinity is one of these branches, and to this also most of what has been said concerning Logic might be considered as equally applicable; but, in fact, there are several important differences between the two cases. In the first place, most of the students who are designed for the Church, and many who are not, have a value for theological knowledge, independently of the requisition of the schools; and on that ground do not confine their views to the lowest admissible degree of proficiency: whereas this can be said of very few in the case of Logic. And moreover, such as design to become candidates for holy Orders, know that another examination in Theology awaits them. But a consideration, which is still more to the present purpose, is, that Theology, not being a Science, admits of infinite degrees of proficiency, from that which is within the reach of a child, up to the highest that is attainable by the most exalted genius; every one of which degrees is inestimably valuable as far as it goes. If any one understands tolerably the Church-catechism, or even half of it, he knows something of divinity, and that something is incalculably preferable to nothing. But it is not so with a Science: one who does not understand the principles of Euclid's demonstrations, whatever number of questions and answers he may have learnt by rote, knows absolutely nothing of Geometry: unless he attain this point all his labour is utterly lost; worse than lost, perhaps, if he is led to believe that he has learned something of Mathematics, when, in truth, he has not. And the same is the case with Logic, or any other Science. It does not admit of such various degrees, as a knowledge of religion. Of course I am far from supposing that all who understand any thing, much or little, of a certain Science, stand on the same level; but I mean, what is surely undeniable, that one who does not embrace the fundamental principles, of a Science, whatever he may have taken on authority, and learned by rote, knows, properly speaking, nothing of that science. And such, I have no hesitation in saying, is the case with a considerable proportion even of those candidates who obtain testimonials, including many who gain distinction. There are some persons (probably not so many as one in ten, of such as have in other respects tolerable abilities,) who are physically incapable of the degree of steady abstraction requisite for really embracing the principles of Logic or of any other Science, whatever pains may be taken by themselves or their teachers. But there is a much greater number to whom this is a great difficulty, though not an impossibility; and who having, of course, a strong disinclination to such a study, look naturally to the very lowest admissible standard. And the example of such examinations in Logic as must be expected in the case of men of these descriptions, tends, in combination

with popular prejudice, to degrade the study altogether in the minds of the generality.

It was from these considerations, perhaps, that it was proposed, a few years ago, to leave the study of Logic altogether to the option of the candidates; but the suggestion was rejected; the majority appearing to think (in which opinion I most fully coincide) that, so strongly has the tide of popular opinion set against the study, the result would have been, within a few years, an almost universal neglect of that science. Matters were accordingly left, at that time, in respect of this point, on their former footing; which I am convinced, was far preferable to the proposed alteration.

But a middle course between these two was suggested, which I was persuaded would be infinitely preferable to either; a persuasion which I had long entertained, and which is confirmed by every day's observations and reflections; of which, few persons, I believe, have bestowed more on this subject. Let the study of Logic, it was urged, be made optional to those who are merely candidates for a degree, but indispensable to the attainment of academical honours; and the consequence would be, that it would speedily begin and progressively continue, to rise in estimation and to be studied with real profit. The examination might then, it was urged, without any hardship, be made a strict one; since no one could complain that a certain moderate degree of scientific ability, and a resolution to apply to a certain prescribed study, should be the conditions of obtaining distinction. The far greater part would still study Logic; since there would be (as before) but few who would be willing to exclude themselves from the possibility of obtaining distinction; but it would be studied with a very different mind, when ennobled, as it were, by being made part of the passport to University honours, and when a proficiency in it came to be regarded generally as an honourable distinction. And in proportion as the number increased of those who really understood the science, the number, it was contended, would increase of such as would value it on higher and better grounds. It would in time come to be better known and better appreciated by all the well-informed part of society: and lectures in Logic at the University would then, perhaps, no longer consist exclusively of an explanation of the mere elements. This would be necessary indeed for beginners; but to the more advanced students, the tutors would no more think of lecturing in the bare rudiments, than of lecturing in the Latin or Greek Grammar; but, in the same manner as they exercise their pupils in Grammar, by reading with them Latin and Greek authors with continual reference to grammar-rules, so, they would exercise them in Logic by

reading some argumentative work, requiring an analysis of it on logical ¡principles.

These effects could not indeed, it was acknowledged, be expected to show themselves fully till after a considerable lapse of time; but that the change would begin to appear, (and that very decidedly,) within three or four years, was confidently anticipated.

To this it was replied, that it was most desirable that no one should be allowed to obtain the Degree of B.A. without a knowledge of Logic. This answer carries a plausible appearance to those unacquainted with the actual state of the University; though in fact it is totally irrelevant. For it goes on the supposition, that hitherto this object has been accomplished; -that every one who passes his examination does possess a knowledge of Logic; which is notoriously not the fact, nor ever can be, without some important change in some part of our system. The question therefore is, not, as the above objection would seem to imply, whether a real, profitable knowledge of Logic shall be strictly required of every candidate for a Degree, (for this in fact never has been done,) but whether, in the attempt to accomplish this by requiring the form of a logical examination from every candidate without exception, we shall continue to degrade the science, and to let this part of the examination be regarded as a mere form, by many who might otherwise have studied Logic in earnest, and with advantage-whether the great majority of candidates, and those too of a more promising description, shall lose a real and important benefit, through the attempt, (which, after all, experience has proved to be a vain attempt,) to comprehend in this benefit a very small number, and of the least promising.

Something of an approach to the proposed alteration, was introduced into the Examination-statute passed in 1830; in which, permission is granted to such as are candidates merely for a testimonial, to substitute for Logic a portion of Euclid. I fear, however, that little or nothing will be gained by this; unless indeed the Examiners resolve to make the examinations in Logic far stricter than those in Euclid. For since every one who is capable of really understanding Euclid must be also capable of Logic, the alteration does not meet the case of those whose inaptitude for Science is invincible; and these are the very description of men whose (so called) logical-examinations tend to depress the science. Those few who really are physically incapable of scientific reasoning, and the far greater number who fancy themselves so, or who at least will rather run a risk than surmount their aversion, and set themselves to study in earnest, all these will be likely, when the alternative is proposed, to prefer Logic to Euclid; because in the latter, it is hardly possible, at

least not near so easy as in Logic, to present the semblance of preparation by learning questions and answers by rote:-in the cant phrase of undergraduates, by getting crammed. Experience has proved this, in the case of the Responsion-examinations, where the alternative of Logic or Euclid has always been proposed to the candidates; of whom those most averse to Science, or incapable of it, are almost always found to prefer Logic.

The determination may indeed be formed, and acted on from henceforth, that all who do in reality know nothing, properly speaking, of any Science, shall be rejected: all I know is, that this has never been the case hitherto.

Still, it is a satisfaction to me, that attention has been called to the evil in question, and an experimental measure adopted for its abatement. A confident hope is thus afforded, that in the event (which I much fear) of the failure of the experiment, some other more effectual measure may be resorted to."

I am sensible that many may object, that this is not the proper place for such remarks as the foregoing: what has the Public at large, they may say, to do with the statutes of the University of Oxford? To this it might fairly be replied, that not only all who think of sending their sons or other near relatives to Oxford, but all likewise who are placed under the ministry of such as have been educated there, are indirectly concerned, to a certain degree, in the system there pursued. But the consideration which had the chief share in inducing me to say what I have, is, that the vindication of Logic from the prevailing disregard and contempt under which it labours, would have been altogether incomplete without it. For let it be remembered that the science is judged of by the Public in this country, in a very great degree, from the specimens displayed, and the reports made, by those whom Oxford sends forth. Every one, on looking into the University-Calendar or Statute-Book, feels himself justified in assuming, that whoever has graduated at Oxford must be a Logician: not, indeed, necessarily, a first-rate Logician; but such as to satisfy the public examiners that he has a competent knowledge of the science. Now, if a very large proportion of these persons neither are, nor think themselves at all benefited by their (so called) logical education, and if many of them treat the study with contempt, and represent it as a mere tissue of obsolete and empty jargon, which it is a mere waste of time to attend to,

5 Since this was written, the experiment has been tried. In the first Examinationlist under the new Statute, (Easter, 1831,) of 125 candidates who did not aspire to the

let any one judge what conclusions

higher classes, twenty-five presented Euclid for their examination, and one hundred, Logic!

respecting the utility of the study, and the wisdom of the University in upholding it, are likely to be the result.

That prejudices so deeply-rooted as those I have alluded to, and supported by the authority of such eminent names, especially that of Locke, and (as is commonly, though not very correctly supposed) Bacon, should be overthrown at once by the present treatise, I am not so sanguine as to expect; but if I have been successful in refuting some of the most popular objections, and explaining some principles which are in general illunderstood, it may be hoped that just notions on the subject may continue (as they have begun) to gain ground more and inore.

It may be permitted me to mention, that as I have addressed myself to various classes of students, from the most uninstructed tyro, to the furthest-advanced Logician, and have touched accordingly both on the most elementary principles, and on some of the most remote deductions from them, it must be expected that readers of each class will find some parts not well calculated for them. Some explanations will appear to the one too simple and puerile; and for another class, some of the disquisitions will be at first too abstruse. If to each description some portions are found interesting, it is as much as I can expect.

With regard to the style, I have considered perspicuity not only, as it always must be, the first point, but as one of such paramount importance in such a subject, as to justify the neglect of all others. Prolixity of explanation,-homeliness in illustration, and baldness of expression, I have regarded as blemishes not worth thinking of, when any thing was to be gained in respect of clearness. To some of my readers a temporary difficulty may occasionally occur from the use of some technical terms different, or differently applied, from what they have been accustomed to. They must consider, however, that the attempt to conform in this point to the usage of every logical writer, would have been, on account of their variations from each other, utterly hopeless. I have endeavoured, in the terms employed, to make no wanton innovations, but to conforın generally to established usage, except when there is some very strong objection to it; where usage is divided, to prefer what may appear in each case the most convenient term; and, above all, to explain distinctly the sense in which each is employed in the present work.

6

If any should complain of my not having given a history of all the senses in which each technical term has been used by each writer from its first introduction, and a review of the works of each, I can only reply *hat my design was not to write a Logical Archæology, or a Commentary

6 See Book II. Chap. I. § 1.