general to have been judicious; though he occasionally ascribes a greater degree of efficacy to some medicines, especially to musk and camphor, than seems to be warranted by general experience.

We are sorry to conclude our account with a remark on the . style of this performance: it is not merely inelegant, but incorrect: witness the following passage: such was her de voted purpose, that she effected it in a manner that would appear incredulous to those who are unacquainted with the almost supernatural cunning and contrivance attached to dementated human nature.'

Other instances of equally strange incorrectness might be produced, if we were solicitous to point out faults.

1802.

ART. XVI. A Defence of Public Education, addressed to the Most Reverend the Lord Bishop of Meath. By William Vincent, D. D. 8vo. Is. 6d. Cadell jun. and Davies. THE decision of Aristotle in favour of a public education, though sanctioned by other great names in antiquity, has been controverted by many antients and many moderns, and par. ticularly by Mr. Locke, in his celebrated treatise on the subject. This opinion of the great Stagirite, however, will perhaps appear in no instance better confirmed than by the experience of our own country; and by the numerous distinguished scholars in every department of literature, who have become the ornament of their age, after having received their education at our public schools. The author of the Defence now before us, which has already passed through several editions, is well known by the respectable station which he lately held as Head Master of Westminster School; by the character which he so eminently sustained in that office, as a scholar of superior talents and attainments; and by several publications with which he has enriched our literature. Since the appearance of this pamphlet, Dr. V. has been promoted to the Deanery of Westminster.

It appears that Dr. Vincent was induced to write a Defence of Westminster School, in vindication of himself among others who are engaged in superintending the education of youth; on account of certain charges which had been brought forwards, though not directed particularly against that seminary, by Dr. Rennell, and afterward repeated by the Bishop of Meath, in their sermons preached at St. Paul's before the Society for promoting Christian Knowlege, and published by that Society. To the latter personage, this pamphlet is addressed. A pas sage, which the Doctor quotes from a note subjoined to the

13

Bishop's

•Bishop's sermon, will explain to our readers the nature of the Charge:

"I had proposed to say a few words on the sad degeneracy of our Public Schools, in this most important part of Education, and their systematic neglect of that religious instruction which in the earlier parts of the Reformation, and even to a much later date, was so carefully provided for the higher and wealthier classes of the British youth; but I found the subject anticipated by Dr. Rennell, in his Sermon on this anniversary, and I could add nothing to what that zealous and eloquent preacher had there urged, to call the public attention to this portentous evil.”

Under this severe accusation, the learned author proceeds to remark the cruelty and unfairness of condemning all public schools in general, in one sweeping clause,' for degeneracy and systematic neglect. Admitting that defects must unavoidably be found in all public institutions, the Doctor enters on the controversy with a full assurance of confuting his opponents, and proving to the public the fallacy of their accusation.

The specific charges advanced by Dr. Rennell, and to which the Bishop of Meath alluded, are here comprized under three separate heads:

First, That the religious education in charity-schools is better conducted than in public seminaries. This charge, which Dr. V. considers as levelled at the Universities as well as at public schools, he endeavours to refute, by alleging the number of learned productions in Theology which have of late issued from the press of the Universities, and by the following remarks:

But in Public Schools, wherein does this lamentable and notorious defectiveness consist? and why is a preference given to the Teachers of Charity Schools rather than to the Instructors in a higher sphere? Could not a popular audience be sufficiently flattered without levelling all above them? Could not the educators of the lowest be conmsoled under their laborious duty without detracting from those whom the public voice, and the discernment of their nominators or electors, had appointed to the management of the first Seminaries in the kingdom? Are not these men of the same profession as their accuser? And does Dr. Rennell deny faith and ability to every Churchman but himself?-No, not ability but will; that shall be answered in its place. But why are men, bred to the instruction of youth by an apprenticeship, supposed more willing to execute their trust than those who have received the most liberal education known in Europe? This is no vain glorious boast. Foreigners subscribe to it; they allow the palm of general information to English travellers above all others. Where did they acquire it? In English Schools, in English Universities; and in nineteen instances out of twenty from the English Clergy. Why are these foundations to be decried? Why are these men to be degraded by a comparison with those who have never had

similar

similar means of acquiring knowledge, or equal advantage in life, manners, and education?'

This species of reply, we must confess, borders somewhat on declamation. It is very true that the directors of public schools are likely to be more learned than those who preside over charity-schools: but does it follow that they must therefore necessarily be more religious? We do not deny the fact; we only observe that the argument is not conclusive. Dr. V.'s statement respecting the attendance on Divinity-lectures in the Universities, as indispensably required, we fear may be found inaccurate; and were it altogether true, we might borrow a scriptural phrase, and inquire-" What doth it?" If the religion taught in the Universities be conveyed merely through the channel of a dry Divinity-lecture, how little will the pupils understand the true spirit of piety and charity! or, if the religion here taught consist merely in requiring a formal attendance at chapel, it is but an empty form. A personal reflection is here made on Dr. Rennell, respecting his great negligence in the care of a charity-school in his parish; as it is here stated, this charge would tend to lessen our confidence in his zeal and sincerity as an advocate for the general diffusion of religious knowlege: but we must add that it had been better omitted by Dr. V., since it will lead some of his readers to accuse him of bitterness and the Odium Theologi

cum.

The second Charge, brought by Dr. Rennell against public schools, is the Paganism there taught.-The subsequent paragraph will shew how ably and acutely Dr. Vincent replies to this accusation :

The first point I have to complain of, is, that the reading of Pagan Authors is converted into a Pagan Education; a perversion of terms that conceals a fallacy under a most invidious assumption. For who is a disciple of Fo, because he learns Chinese? or a Bhuddist, because he reads Sanscreet? If the wild mythology of Hindostan is thought an object worthy of the labours of a Sir W. Jones, Wilkins, or a Maurice, to explore; if some men of the most consummate learning have dedicated their lives to investigate the extravagancies of the Egyptian, Persian, Peruvian, or Druidical system; does it follow that they are tainted with the respective superstitions?— But it will be said these are men, and we teach children; be it so. Yet I assert, that I never yet found a child of ten years old, who believed in the transformation of Jupiter into a bull, or a swan, or a shower of gold; nor a child, in the nursery, convinced that crows sung, or trees talked, or asses played on the fiddle. The scruples of Dr. Rennell, after banishing the abominable heathen Poets out of our schools, may wish to discard sop and Pilpay from our families. He has read Rousseau,-Rousseau complains, that in La Fontaine,

foxes lie; and his eléve must not suspect that there is such a thing as a lie in the world. Sweet innocence! he will find plenty of lies, and falsehood, and deception too, when he shall enter upon the scene of life; and perhaps it were better that he should learn the distinctions in theory, before he suffers from them by experience. But children of five years old are not deceived by fables, more than by the parables in scripture. If Jotham makes a bramble talk, why may not Esop? And children of ten are no more misled by the Gods of Ovid, than men are by the miracles of Apollonius or Creeshna.'

These sentiments had been formerly stated by the author to the late well-known Mr. Jones of Nayland, who was among the number of those who wished to see a reform in our public schools; and Mr. Jones fully admitted their force. Dr. V. properly observes that the charge substitutes Pagan for Classical instruction; and that no evil consequences are likely to result from the use of Pagan authors, if the Master be careful to point out the defects of their moral system, and to shew how infinitely their religious notions fall short of the word of God. A remark which we shall now quote appears to us to carry great weight in favour of the Doctor's argument:

The luminaries of the Church in all ages, from Bede to Roger Bacon, from Bacon to the Reformation, and from the Reformation to the present hour, were all formed upon classical instruction. And if the writings of our English Divines stood higher than all others in the estimation of Europe, for solidity of reasoning, and superiority of composition, what other cause can be assigned for it, but the excellence of the models by which their style was formed, and their judgment corrected?'

The question which now presents itself is, whether, in the midst of these false notions of religion impressed by Pagan authors on juvenile minds, a sufficient provision be made to engrave, more deeply, a knowlege of true religion; and Dr. Vincent's reply to the third Charge will, we are persuaded, satisfactorily resolve this doubt.

The third Charge states that public schools are guilty of a systematic neglect of all religious instruction.-In answer Dr.V. observes that, according to the statutes of Westminster School, prayers are performed, including graces, ten times a day: comprehending nearly the whole service of the Church, and as attentively observed as the levity of youth will admit.-Since the statutes enjoin this frequent compliance with the outward duties of religion, they cannot well be omitted: but we are of opinion that a revision of the statutes on these points would be a salutary undertaking; because we cannot help thinking that the piety of our ancestors, in making so bountiful a provision for the external ordinances of religion, tends, though sincerely

designed

designed to the contrary, to choak the good seed, rather than to aid it in yielding fruits of increase.-Surely it cannot be urged that there is any deficiency of religious instruction at Westminster School, when we hear of the sacred exercises which are performed, of the attention exerted in teaching and explaining the Scriptures, and of the solemn preparation and serious instruction which take place previously to the celebration of the Lord's Supper:

This is a duty, my Lord, most painfully and energetically performed; prayers are selected for the purpose; and, in addition to the other offices of the day, performed, during the whole week previous, in the master's house; and upon one day in that week, a lecture or rather affectionate address, is delivered to them, in a manner which I wish your Lordship or Dr. Rennell could attest. I have, with very little exception, personally, for thirty years, executed this office, four times in every year; and I have every reason to believe, that it is acceptable, salutary, and efficacious.'

From what has been advanced by Dr. Vincent in this defence, his readers cannot but be convinced that there is not a systematic neglect of religious instruction at Westminster School; and, if Masters in general are as attentive and as able in discharging the sacred duties of their office as Dr. V. confessedly is, the public will not easily be induced to withdraw their confidence, or to doubt the propriety of intrusting children to their care. Whether, generally speaking, many points of dise cipline in our public schools might not be better regulated and enforced; whether the general conduct of youth in these days, their great expences, their morals, the liberty allowed to them, &c. &c. might not be laid under greater restraint with much advantage to the rising generation; we shall leave others to decide. We would neither, on the one hand, train them up puritans and fanatics, nor, on the other, rest satisfied with teaching them religion merely as a branch of human science: but we would have them accustomed to see, in their Masters, an exemplary pattern of piety, meekness, and charity; and in their own persons they should be required to render due obedience to the rules prescribed, and to practise as well as to learn the obligation to practise those moral duties which, in our acceptation, constitute the sum and substance of what is called Vital Religion.

ART.