tation now and then from a dead language. Our humble advice, however, to both those personages, is, if they have no better notion than Mr. Edgeworth's of the meaning and application of the classics, to spare themselves the degrading labour of learning to read them. If they do not minister to better views, they are not worth the idlest gentleman's time for the turn of a dictionary leaf. Did we see any intention to replace ancient authors, by a severe, rational, and systematic study of our own classical writers--or did we hear those who desire to mitigate the excessive admiration of Cicero, Thucydides, and Homer, introduce as competitors with them, a body composed of Hooker, Shakespeare, Milton, Clarendon, Addison, Burke, and Johnson, we should be inclined to enter into parley with the proposed reform, and deliberate upon the exchange. But the equivalent offered consists commonly of a medley of fragments of science among the mechanical or manufactory schemes of life, or some very ordinary tricks of professional habit. To all such projects of improvement, the answer of common sense is, that things had better rest as they are. Languages have been called by an apt comparison the keys of knowledge; and Greek and Latin being pieces of very curious art in their structure, it has so happened that ingenious men have often stopt short in the study of them, to amuse themselves with the wards and workmanship of the key, instead of possessing themselves of the treasure lodged under it. Provoked at their folly, others have called upon us to throw the key away at once.— But Mr. Edgeworth, with a nice mixture of sense, and something which is not sense, advises us to keep the key in use, but not to draw too much out of the strong box. He has set an example in himself of this forbearance; which all those may imitate who desire to accompany a morsel of Latin which they may like to quote, as, sui atque alieni contemptus,' with a translation into contempt of himself and others:'* or who believe their general style of thinking will be improved in proportion as it recedes from the air of all taste and refinement. The useful is the divinity of Mr. Edgeworth's mind. To unders'and how pure and strict a worshipper he is of his own idol, we must look to the inquisition which he has ready for the classical sectarian. Of what use, he asks, was Lord Mansfield's talent of Latin verse to him as a judge? It is most true, that English judges do not, like the Delphic oracle, give their sentence in any kind of verse. But of what detriment to him as a judge was that obnoxious talent? Was he the less capable on the bench, because he amused some of his home hours more elegantly than Mr. Edgeworth can ap * Page 287. prove? Or was he the worse listened to in court or parliament for having caught from those same authors that gave him language for verse, the pure, argumentative animation which distinguished him as a speaker? Could he have explained law better than he did, even if he had not studied the principles of it in the best authors? Or. could he have made his profession appear more attractive to young minds, if he had not shewn how well it might associate with the graces of literature? Another part of the devout worship of the great goddess utility, consists in chaunting the praises of spinning-mills and steam-engines, and processes of chemical art. The use of all these things for giving bread to a laborious population, for providing us with the accommodations of life, and, with the aid of good statesmen, for extending national wealth and power, is a subject we easily comprehend. But the use of studying the theories of them in a course of education in any other sense than that of occupations of a commendable curiosity, we are not equally able to comprehend. Knowledge is a good for its own sake; but this general panegyric will not satisfy the intentions of those who wish to obtrude useful knowledge in the place of liberal. We suspect, however, that they are involved in a fallacy by their own logic. For let us suppose a young man studying chemistry, and embracing all the practical discoveries of that science-to whom is his knowledge useful? Is it to himself? Is he a manufacturer? or does he instruct manufacturers? He does neither. The mechanical artisan is carrying on the useful process unconscious of these academical speculations. Suppose, however, some chemical philosopher to make a new discovery, by which the art of bleaching may be rendered cheaper and better to the incalculable benefit of the manufacturers of Ireland: the new process flies over our speculator's head, and is safely transmitted by the post to the bleaching grounds of Colerain, where it is incorporated with the national wealth. To him the discovery comes merely as a part of his inactive speculations. The inventor is a public benefactor, the student is none; he must make up his account with himself, and reckon the value of his own personal pleasure and information. The useful merit is engrossed wholly by the inventor and the artisan. To repeat our opinion once more then, the useful sciences, as they are called, stand upon the same footing as any other sciences in the scheme of education: what is the portion of intellect they exercise, is the only question to be asked. But the useful sciences, as objects of national wealth, the less value they may have as liberal pursuits, deserve more the encouragement of public policy. They merit the patronage, but not the mind, of a people. Having discussed the general principles of Mr. Edgeworth's book pretty pretty fally, we do not propose to enter much into the detail of it, conceiving, as we do, that it is a performance which cannot help to raise the intellectual character of our country by an improved education; and that the aims and arrangements of it are calculated rather for the lowest wants, than the perfection, of any of the professions. The study of it might be useful in many senses to those who want a guide, and have an understanding of very moderate promise, to be guided. But we must be prepared with a good deal of indulgence for the shallow and empirical sort of attainments which they are likely to receive from it. Instead of making well-educated men, the object of his system is to make pleading, and prescribing, and other machines. So far does he carry the subdivision of his relative aims, that the knowledge of the first and plainest truths of religion, is made to belong to a particular profession. The little uncassocked clergyman of six years old is to be made acquainted with the being of a God, in a proper philosophical way. But his lay-brothers have no such regufar instruction provided for them. It is no part of their business. They must recollect that they are not designed for the church, and follow their proper profane studies. Who knows but they may live to hear their brother in the pulpit, and get some religion from him there? The lawyer is to have his appropriate management as soon as he begins to speak. A nurse of good accent is to be procured for him, to modulate his first babblings to the right tone of the bar. He is to prattle for a fee. He is afterwards to be encouraged to a little ill-bred disputatiousness for the same worthy purpose. Mr. Edgeworth quotes a trite passage of Roman history to shew that the Romans bestowed much care upon the elocution of their children, and repeats over again the tale of Cornelia and the Gracchi. The Romans thought it a grace in their children to speak their own language well. So thinks every one. The peculiarity of Mr. Edgeworth's mind consists in making it exclusively a lawyer's accomplishment. The physician that is to be, as soon as he can wield a spade, is to have his garden, in imitation of the great Sir Charles Linnæus, and vex the ground with his botanical arrangements. The culture of opium and rhubarb will be his first step to the prescription of them. The infant soldier is to be made a hero as soon as possible. Indeed no time is to be lost with him; for Mr. Edgeworth recoinmends that he be accustomed to the presence of domestic animals without terror, and be taken to the exhibitions of wild beasts that he may be familiarized to their forms and cries,' His nurse too must be chosen for her aptitude to the duties of rearing a great captain. captain. When the defender of his country is grown up to a boy, his sports should be of the military cast. Without making too much parade, he should begin to work upon some fortification in the corner of a shrubbery. He must be trained also to a sense of honour, and abhor the disgrace of corporal punishment as a soldier ought. Such is the grand scheme of partition to be made among the professional aspirants according to their destinations of future life. Religion, a good elocution, gardening, and other amusements, a manly constitution of body and mind, and a tenderness of honour, we have always thought to be good for boys as sensitive rational beings capable of instruction, health, and pleasure. To make cunning sport for them, and defraud them of the natural right of amusing themselves in their own way, does not agree with our feelings of kindness for them. It sophisticates them in the very point where they should be most free and natural. But to delegate the moral qualities, such as a just impression of religion, and a right sense of honour, to a station or title, or a piece of cloth, or to make the slightest difference in these respects, is to confound the essence of morality, and run deliberately insane upon a spurious conceited wisdom. Mr. Edgeworth has sometimes taken the liberty of recommending books to his pupils, with which we perceive he does not think it necessary to be much acquainted himself. This is injudicious, because it shakes the credit of his authority with them. The first list he has mentioned is open to this exception. He speaks in it of authors who have most distinguished themselves in ecclesiastical history, and in the eloquence of the pulpit. Hooker, Barrow, Tillotson, Clarke, Atterbury, South, Wilson, and many others, cannot fail immediately to occur.'-Which one of all these authors are we to take as distinguished in ecclesiastical history? Besides his essays on the more regular professions, Mr. Edgeworth has paid the same regard to the education of the country gentleman, the statesinan, and the prince his reasons for giving the title of professional education to his book notwithstanding these anomalous classes, are quite valid. These classes have their appropriate duties.' The art and mystery of a country gentleman is among the most fashionable of our country: it is entailed upon many good families, and from the overflow of commercial opulence new members are constantly flocking into the profession. It was well judged therefore to draw out a survey of their duties for this numerous body of men, and remind them that they should have some better pursuit than that of partridges. We are convinced that if they, as well as statesmen and princes, would acquire the virtues which Mr. Edgeworth inculcates, and act up to his instruction, they they might be an ornament to themselves and their country. It would require greater felicity of style and argument than these essays possess to invite our criticism to them: but we trust that the parties immediately concerned in the subject will not want such inducements to their duty; but be pleased on easier terms with a cheerful communicative writer who will give them abundance of anecdote, and mingle many good stories with his advice. ART. XI. A Refutation of Calvinism, in which the Doctrines of Original Sin, Grace, Regeneration, Justification, and Universal Redemption, are explained; and the peculiar Tenets maintained by Calvin on those points are proved to be contrary to Scripture, to the Writings of the Antient Fathers of the Christian Church, and to the public formularies of the Church of England. By G. Tomline, D. D. F. R. S. Lord Bishop of Lincoln, and Dean of St. Paul's. London. Cadell and Davies. 1811. ease. FEW persons can be much conversant in theological controversy, without frequently regretting, that discussions should have been started on many subjects decidedly above the grasp of human intellect. The Bible is a plain book, which all may understand with The points of necessary belief there laid down, are few and simple, and the path of duty is so strait that none can miss it. Why then have Christians, in all ages, been so busily employed in tracing theological subtleties, and multiplying creeds and articles of faith? Why have they thought it necessary to stir up abstruse questions which have exasperated many bad passions, and generated many unhappy divisions, while they have been productive of no counterbalancing advantages, and have diverted the attention from solid practical duties, to thorny and fruitless speculations? Why, too, have men of the most enlarged and liberal views, and the most exempt from bigotry, added fuel to the flames of controversy, and by taking part in these discussions, given them a degree of firmness and consistency which they could not have otherwise acquired? To these questions an answer may be given, which is fully sufficient for the defence of at least the more sound, judicious, and temperate members of the christian community who have taken part in them. The subtleties of discussion have not begun with them but with heretics and schismatics, persons of disturbed imaginations, distorted understandings, or over-weening fondness for novelty of opinion. They find perplexing disquisitions already started, nice distinctions and explanations already attempted by others. In these circumstances, it remains no longer to be considered, whether for bearance |