order to obtain a momentary repofe under an unqualified defpotism, has been compelled to acknowledge, that religion, and indeed a na tional church, are effential to the peace of fociety; and until the Britifh conftitution, piercing those black and portentous clouds of error and fanaticifm, which for a time hung over it, has again fhone out in its native fplendour, nay with a luftre heightened by the obfcurity out of which it has emerged. Such are the objects which we have gained by the war; and, though they may be of no value in the eyes of the Whig Club, yet, in the estimation of the British people, they compenfate all the treafures, and they immortalize all the blood, that have been expended in their attainment." P. 53. They certainly do fo in our opinion, and in that of the nation. Even with regard to the grand obje& not obtained, the balance of power on the Continent, we fufpect it to have been with ourfelves and with our fathers more an object, than from its very quality it ought to have been with either; fair and attractive in theory, but in practice too difficult to be fettled, too fhifting to be preferved unchanged, and too much requiring a combination of powers in generous as well as general feelings, for either fettling or keeping long. But whatever there may be in this theory, as oppofed to that, under the prefent circumftances we are certain, that to have deprived ourfelves of peace, when it could be had with honour and with profit, merely because we could not fecure that independence of powers on the Continent, which thefe powers could not co-operate with us to fecure, which while we were fecuring they would have deserted, perhaps, and even faced us with open hoftility in the field, would have been a flight of generofity too daring for fober reafon. We have thus given our readers a full view of this excellent pamphlet, and in the very language too of the refpectable author. We have done this by confining ourselves to the fingle fubject of peace. By fo acting, indeed, we have been obliged to pals over pallages of a moral nature, that would have done still more honour to the head and heart of Mr. Bowles, than any which we have felected from the political. Yet we gave up that advantage for the fake of fhowing Mr. Bowles's opinion upon the peace in all its political relations. His opinion will doubtlefs have confiderable influence upon the minds of those firm champions of the conftitution, who have been animating their countrymen to a vigorous profecution of the war, and who are now grieving over the fudden termination of it. If we have uniformly rejoiced at the clofe of a war, the origin of which we have often defended, and the progrefs of which we long felt to be neceffary, it has been (besides the urgency of the cafe) because we thought all gained that there was was any probability of gaining. The powers of Europe had deferted us; and to fight for them, when they would no longer fight for themfelves, was perfectly chimerical. Our naval power was established, our honour vindicated, our monarchy fecured. In the fe fentiments the perufal of Mr. Bowles's tract has more and more confirmed us, and probably will convince many others. For thefe reafons then, we thank him for his work, in our own name, and in that of the public. This fecond edition is augmented by a strong and able Appendix. ART. XIII. A Defence of Public Education, addreffed to the moft* Reverend the Lord Bishop of Meath, by William Vincent, D. D. In Anfwer to a Charge annexed to his Lordship's Difcourfe, preached at St. Paul's on the Anniverfary Meeting of the Charity Children, and publifhed by the Society for promoting Chriftian Knowledge. 8vo. 46 pp. 1s. Cadell and Davies. 1801. TTACHED as we are, not only by early impreffion and gratitude, but by the strong conviction of our reason, to public education, as conducted in the principal schools of this kingdom, we cannot fuffer this important tract, of a man whofe life and writings give the utmolt force to his arguments, to lie upon our table for a fingle day without due notice. We hail, with the moft cordial fatisfaction, a vindication dignified as it is juft, impreffive even to emotion, upon our feelings, yet reconciling in the completeft manner the natural warmth of a man severely injured, with the temper of a Chriftian, and, in general, even with the delicate forbearance of politeness. We difmifs with contempt the futile, though common queftion, "what is it to Dr. Vincent, more than to other masters of public schools?" When a body is attacked, any member of it may begin the defence. To wait for the co-operation of all, would be to wait perhaps for an impoffibility. But when numbers are accufed, they are more peculiarly aggrieved, whofe confcientious and unremitting care it has been to avoid the faults imputed. Such is the fituation of Dr. Vincent; and more requires not to be faid in vindication of his present effort. The attack was begun two years ago, and, what is most extraordinary, by a gentleman who is himself a living proof of the great advantages of public education,-by Dr. Rennell; in a Copied from the title of the Bishop's Sermon ; but, we conceive, erroneous there. U u BRIT. CRIT. VOL. XVIII, DEC. 1801. Sermon Sermon preached on a former anniversary, at St. Paul's. That Sermon we purpofely did not review, left we fhould interrupt, or afterwards difturb, an accommodation then undertaken by the mutual friends of Dr. Vincent and the preacher The charge, which was no lefs than that of a fiflematic neglect of religious inftruction in our public fchools, has now been repeated by the Bithop of Meath, on a fimilar occafion, but chiefty, as it feems, on the authority of Dr. Rennell. Such is the nature of the charge conveyed in thefe two difcourfes, and the notes upon them, that we conceive it to be abfolutely incumbent upon every mafter of a public fchool, either to thow, as Dr. Vincent has done, that it is inapplicable to that where he prefides, or immediately to begin an avowed reformation of the faulty fyftem. Large feminaries, fyftematically neglecting Chriftian inftruction, would be a public evil, the continuance of which, when once detected, no pretence could juftify. It would be inconfiftent with the national wisdom, and we trust with the national piety, that it fhould be tolerated, even for a day. The affair then is now at iffue. Dr. Rennell has made the charge, in plain and unqualified terms; the Bishop of Meath has repeated it, with ftrong approbation of his predeceffor in the fame pulpit. With refpect to Westminster, Dr. Vincent has come forward in a manly manner, with positive proof that the charge, with refpect to that fchool, is abfolutely unfounded. It remains for other perfons, in fimilar fituations, to defend themfelves as they may, and as we trust they can. We confefs we find it difficult, in opening any page in this tract, not immediately to begin a citation. Yet our allotted fpace is nearly filled, and we must of neceflity be as concife as poffible. We will endeavour, by ftating the plan of the writer, and producing one or two of the most itriking pallages, to give as fair a notion as we can of the production. Dr. Vincent difpofes the charges made by Dr. R. and adopted by the Bifhop, under three heads; which are thefe: I. "That a preference is due to the religious education in Charity III. That the public fehools are guilty of a fyftematic neglect of all religious inftruction." To each of the points the doctor makes his answer diftinctly, unequivocally, and ftrongly, in a manner amounting to no less than complete refutation. Had we at alt reviewed Dr. Rennell's difcourfe, we could not but have noticed his ftrange manner of extolling charity fchools at the expence of more luftrious feminaries. It is always bad policy to commend one at the expence of another. If religion is lett at at the higher fchools, and only to be preferved in those where the poor are taught, the cafe is very defperate. On this pofition, Dr. Vincent's remarks are too important to be paffed by.. "But in Public Schools, wherein does this lamentable and notorious defectiveness confift? and why is a preference given to the teachers of Charity Schools rather than to the inftructors in a higher sphere? Could not a popular audience be fufficiently flattered without levelling all above them? Could not the educators of the lowest be confoled under their laborious duty, without detracting from those whom the public voice, and the difcernment of their nominators or electors had appointed to the management of the first feminaries in the kingdom? Are not thefe men of the fame profeffion as their accufer? And does Dr. Rennell deny faith and ability to every Churchman but himself? No, not ability but will; that fhall be answered in its place. But why are men bred to the inftruction of youth by an apprenticeship, fuppofed more willing to execute their truft, than those who have received the moft liberal education known in Europe? This is no vainglorious boaft. Foreigners fubfcribe to it; they allow the palm of general information to English travellers above all others. Where did they acquire it? In English fchools, in English univerfities; and in nineteen inftances out of twenty from the English clergy. Why are thefe foundations to be decried? Why are thefe men to be degraded by a comparison with those who have never had fimilar means of acquiring knowledge, or equal advantages in life, manners, and education? But this is not fufficient; the inferior is to be raised above the fuperior; the children of the poor are to be told, that they have better inftruction than thofe above them; and the teachers of the poor are taught to believe, that their's is the pre-eminence; that they are to atone for the neglect, and compenfate for the deficiency of all that are engaged in the education of the higher orders. If the children who heard this difcourfe understood it, I fhould imagine, that their respect for the rank above them must be greatly diminished, and their refiftance to fubordination greatly increased; and if they were capable of drawing a conclufion, the natural confequence ought to be, that as they are wifer and better than their fuperiors, they ought to govern, and their fuperiors obey." P. 16. But is the fact as fuppofed? With refpect to Westminster the negative is proved. The abfurd and dangerous fallacy of calling it a Pagan Education at public fchools, because Pagan authors are there read, is expofed by Dr. Vincent as it deferves. But in fpeaking of the ufe to be made of fine moral paffages in fuch authors, at a Chriftian fchool, the noble exemplification given by him is worthy of universal perusal. "When we have fuch authors as thefe in our hands, if a mafter does not explain the fentiment of Sophocles by the text of St. Paul, and contraft the eternal unwritten* law of the Gentiles, with the law en graven on the heart; if he does not compare the language of Cleanthes, Plato, and the Stoic School, with the doctrines of Revelation; if he does not point out how far thofe doctrines approach the truth, and how infinitely they fall fhort of THE WORD OF GOD, that mafter is not of our flock, nor worthy of the place he holds. Upon fuch opportunities as authors or fentiments like these afford, I remember to this hour, the tone, the manner, the elevated warmth of my own preceptor, the venerable Metropolitan of York; and I feel at this moment, that I owe the firmeft principles of my mind, and my first reverence of the Scriptures to his inftruction." P. 23. The latter part of this tract, in anfwer to the charge of a Syftematic neglect of religion, flates the plain fact of the sysTEMATIC, ATTENTION to it in the fchool over which the author with fuch dignity prefides: and the statement is fuch as fhould make the accufers repent of the indifcriminate extent of their charge. Of himfelf, Dr. V. fpeaks with the humility of a Christian, but with the firmnefs of a man undefervedly injured; and his conclufion has in it fome circumstances too remarkable to be omitted. "Our life is not an unhappy one: the attachment of the good, and their fuccefs in life compenfates for the failure of thofe who have profited lefs by our endeavours. FORTY years labour, and FIFTY years experience, entitle me to a retirement of quiet and independence. But if my retirement is to be embittered with the reproach of having done no good, of fyftematic neglect, of refolute and contemptuous inatten. tion to my duty-I anfwer, once for all, that "contemptuous neglect," is a term paft comprehenfion; to contemn our duty towards God is not wickednefs, but infanity. And "refolute or fyftematic neglect," I difclaim, as a charge utterly falfe and groundless; a falfehood I have proved it, if my teftimony is worthy of credit; and if my affertion is not fufficient, I am ready to establish it by legal evidence, by oath, or any other ordeal that my accufers may demand. But for the prefent, I take my leave of them with the sentiment of a Poet and a Pagan, Ει δ' διδ ἁμαρτάνεσι, μὴ πλείω κακὰ Πάθοιεν, ἤ καί δρῶσιν ἐκδίκως ἐμέ.” Ρ. 41. We cannot conclude this article without faying, that the refufal of the Society for promoting Chriftian Knowledge to circulate Dr. Vincent's promife of a defence, with the Sermons in which the accufations were made, was an injuftice highly unworthy of that body. How far they might be justifiable in circulating the accufations at all, as adopted by them, is a question into which we will not enter. We fay this with highest general respect and affection for a fociety, of which Dr. Vincent truly fays, that it is eftimable above all others, "for doing the most extenfive good with the leaft poffible parade." P. 7. But bodies of men may err, as well as individuals, and this ap pears |