are supple and pliant, and without a knowledge of them no degree should be conferred. The academies in and about London give principal attention to these important branches of education; and one of the conductors, in my hearing, spoke contemptibly of all teachers who busied themselves in the cultivation of the minds of their pupils. Such strange prejudices are now wearing off; and many young men toil not in learning either composition or quantity, well knowing that all seeming deficiencies are richly compensated by an elegant exterior, by an address totally devoid of unmanly diffidence. Spouting in public, and performing in private theatricals, have produced pregnant advantages; and, though not very young, I hope to see each College furnishing its dramatic performances with as much regularity as is now shewn in furnishing disputants and preachers. As to the study of music, and practice on musical instruments, little improvement can be proposed, because the students of the University, in general, have always shewn uncommon zeal in such pursuits. The diffi culty which many had to combat rendered their diligence and perseverance more meritorious, though they displeased some book-worms, and compelled them to change their apartments. I remember that one obstinate reader was driven away by the stamping, as well as fiddling of the inha bitant above him. To play God Save the King, and Foot's Minuet, in some deserved no small degree of commendation, as it was the result of long and laborious practice; and a profound knowledge thus acquired will enable Canons and Prebendaries to superintend and improve the choral service of their respective cathedrals. Let it also be considered, to what a wretched condition the teachers on various instruments must be reduced, if none were to be taught but those who are able rapidly to learn. Be. sides, be it said in defiance of Lord Chesterfield, the modest demeanour, the attic conversation, and the brilliant wit of professed musicians, are passed into a proverb, and will eminently improve the academical symposiacks. I am, Sir, yours, MISCELLANEOUS. PHILOSEMNUS. SIR, THE EDINBURGH CONTROVERSY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW.. WHEN I pointed out to you the partiality of your review of Mr. Professor Stewart's Short Statement of Facts, &c. and the dereliction of principle which that article seemed to betray, I did not expect or wish you to run from one extreme to another, or to pour a torrent of blackguard abuse, in one article, on the man whom you had unduly praised in ano NO. XCVI. VOL. XXIV. P ther. ther. I wished you to take a candid and comprehensive review of the whole Controversy between the Ministers of Edinburgh and certain Professors in their University; to state the faults of both parties; and to bestow praise wheresoever praise may be due. Instead of this, you have given us reviews, or what you wish to pass for reviews, of three pamphlets in that Controversy, in which you talk of poor Stewart being in danger of being laughed at by his own pupils; in which you seem to accuse him, and Playfair, and Leslie, of atheism; and in which you have certainly, though, I am perfectly aware, unintentionally, taught the first principles of atheism yourself. But I beg your Reviewer's pardon. He has, indeed, taught nothing; for such a cluster of unmeaning words, and unharmonious sentences, was, I believe, never before brought together, as that which disgraces the Anti-Jacobin for April, from page 399 to page 411. Stewart, through the whole of this Controversy, has written in a style of arrogance and self-sufficiency, which becomes no man; and which has given too much reason to suspect, that he wishes to tear the laurels from the brow of his and my old master, Dr. Reid, and twine them round his own but Stew. art is not a man at whom any pupil, not a fool, will ever be disposed to laugh. He has erred, and, I think, erred widely, in attempting to apologize for the language of Leslie's famous note, to which the Ministers of Edinburgh justly objected; but had he restrained his passion and party. spirit so far, as only to censure these gentlemen for their opposition to his friend, after that language was explained, or retracted, his conduct would have deserved all the praise that has been bestowed upon it by his fondest admirers, provided he had treated his opponents as his equals, which they certainly are in every sense of the word; and candidly allowed, that the Ministers of Edinburgh had a right to demand from Mr. Leslie an explanation of language, which all must allow to be inaccurate. In this point of view, Mr. Playfair's conduct has been much more correct than Mr. Stewart's. If my memory does not deceive me (for I have not his pamphlet at hand), he admits, that it became his friend to write such a letter as that which he sent to the Professor of Divinity; and adds, that, if he had been consulted, he would have advised such a measure; though he would certainly have dissuaded Mr. Leslie from making any farther concession. Had I been consulted on the same subject, I would certainly have given a similar advice. Mr. Playfair's Letter is, indeed, a masterly performance, and exhibits, beyond a doubt, the best specimen of the polemical style, that is to be found on either side of this celebrated Controversy. It is, however, far from unexceptionable, as you will readily perceive by candidly comparing it with Dr. Inglis's Reply. The conduct of the Ministers of Edinburgh was, on the other hand, not only blameless, but in the highest degree praiseworthy, in the steps which they first took to oppose the appointment of Mr. Leslie to a Professorship in their University. They have solemnly denied that they were influenced by any other motive than a regard for the interests of religion; and as nothing like a proof has been brought of that combination into which they were accused, by the two Professors, of having entered, no man has a right to question the purity of their motives. They are to blame only for not having stopt their proceedings when they had accomplished all which they could reasonably demand. Yet the writings of Messrs. Stewart 1 Stewart and Playfair have furnished, even for their subsequent conduct, an apology, which nothing else, I conceive, could have furnished; as those writings have certainly raised in my mind, and in the minds of many others, suspicions which, when I last wrote to you, we did not entertain. If Mr, Stewart was influenced by no other motives than a love of justice, and a regard for the interests of science, why did he continue his hostility to the Ministers of Edinburgh, after both those objects had been obtained by the decision of the General Assembly of the Church? In particular, why did he treat with insolence and scorn, the unoffending Principal of his College? The language of his last Postscript is, indeed, a singular ebullition of passion, when it is considered as the language of a profound philosopher, who treats with great coolness and moderation, Hume, and D'Alembert, and Condorcet, and all the other abettors of atheism! Let me therefore request you, Sir, once more, to read with attention the third edition of Stewart's Short Statement of Facts; the Examination of Mr. Dugald Stewart's Pamphlet, believed to be by Dr. Inglis; the Postscript to Mr. Stewart's Short Statement of Facts; Playfair's Letter to the Author of the Examination of the Short Statement of Facts; Inglis's Reply to Playfair's Letter, &c.; and Remarks on certain Passages of an Examination of Mr. Dugald Stewart's Pamphlet, by Dr. Brown, Principal of Marischal College, in this University. Other pamphlets have been published on both sides of this Controversy; but these are sufficient to give a correct view of the principles and projects of the leaders of the two parties; whilst the two masterly tracts by Dr. Inglis prove, to the conviction of all but party-men, that there were more than grounds for alarm; and that, in metaphysical discussion, the Ministers of Edinburgh are, at least, a match for the Professors in the University. I must request, however, that the review of this highly-important Controversy be written by an Englishman; and if the reviewer would subscribe his name to it, he would render it of more value, as well as prevent the different cabals in Edinburgh from calumniating innocent men, on whom they choose to cast their suspicions. I say this, because when I was in Edinburgh the other week, attending the General Assembly, I heard my last letter given to two different men of different professions, with neither of whom have I the pleasure of being acquainted. One of them has, indeed, entered warmly into the dispute, and taken, I believe, a very decided part in it; but the other, there is reason to suspect, laughs at both parties; and hopes that, by their vio lence, they will injure the Church of Scotland. Your coadjutors in support of the constitution, the British Critics, have given a very impartial view of part of this Controversy; but they have done it with a feebleness characteristic of a journal which is conducted by men who seem fearful to offend. I do not wish you to offend any men, or any party, wantonly; but I do hope to see you render impartial justice, regardless of popular names and party prejudices. I am perfectly aware of the little reverence that you profess for the constitution and doctrine of the Church of Scotland; but I am aware, likewise, that you have pledged yourself to resist *Preface to the first volume of the Anti-Jacobin Review. every effort to effect her subversion; and no efforts to that purpose are. more to be dreaded than such controversies as that under present conside. ration. I am, Sir, Aberdeen, June 9, 1806. A LOOKER-ON. SIR, THE SCOTCH EPISCOPACY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW. AS I consider the Anti-Jacobin Review devoted to the support of Episcopacy, and the promotion of unity in the church, I hope you will have no objections to insert the following reply to a pamphlet which is circulated in Scotland, for the purpose of perpetuating division among the Episcopalians in this part of the United Kingdom. I am, Sir, your most humble servant, Banff, May 15, 1806. Of all the subjects that can engage the attention of mankind, none is more important than religion, on account of its connexion with our hap. piness. Hence, in considering this subject, it is our interest to employ the most watchful care against the seducing influence of prejudice. To this there is no person who does not assent. Yet it will be found in fact, that in no discussions has prejudice operated more frequently, and with greater power, than in those which concern religion. Many instances might be produced of this truth; but I am acquainted with no recent one, which is to me so striking as the apology of Dr. Grant. Dr. Grant acknowledges himself to be one of those Episcopal Clergymen, officiating in Scotland, who withhold, and, it seems, are resolved to withhold, submission to the spiritual authority of the Scotch Bishops. In vindication of this conduct he affirms, that the Episcopal Church of Scotland differs widely both in principle and practice from the Church of England; nay, that there is an essential difference between these two churches. This, therefore, is the point to be examined. The articles of faith, authoritatively set forth by a church, are up. derstood to declare her principles. Hence, between two churches which receive the very same articles of faith, there can be no essential differ. ence. But the Episcopal Church of Scotland receives the very same Articles of Faith that the Church of England does. The conclusion is obvious. With respect to the Canons of the Church of England, as far as they relate to doctrinal matters, they must agree with the Thirty-nine Articles; and are, therefore, received, at least virtually, by the Episcopal Church of Scotland. In what belongs to order and discipline, they are regulations which no doubt are wisely adapted to the state of things in the Church of England, but which a dissimilarity of situations makes it impossible for the Episcopal Church of Scotland to adopt. But this forms no essential difference between the two Churches. For things which pertain to order and discipline are in themselves of a mutable character; and every Church is at liberty to do with regard to them what she she judges to be, in her circumstances, most conducive to edification; and this the Church of England herself expressly affirms in the quotation, which Dr. Grant cites from the Preface to her Liturgy, at the 7th page of his Apology. It follows, that whatever obligation the Canons of the Church of England may impose on her Clergy, while they exercise their sacred office within the bounds of her jurisdiction, they can impose none on them, when a change of place brings them within the jurisdiction of another sound part of the universal Church. The Episcopal Church of Scotland does not, indeed, use the Commu. nion,office of the Church of England. Still this makes no essential dif. ference between the two Churches. For, is it probable, that such a diffe. rence can arise from a Communion-office which was reviewed and approved by an Archbishop and a Bishop of the Church of England? But the Com. munion-office of the Episcopal Church of Scotland is, with very little alte. ration, that one which, when drawn up expressly for her use, was reviewed and approved by Archbishop Laud and Bishop Wrenn. It appears to have been composed on the model of the first reformed Communion-office of the Church of England, which, be it observed, was not laid aside on account of any errors said to be discovered in it, but for very differ. ent reasons. To which it may be proper to add, that the Communion. office of the Episcopal Church of Scotland contains nothing which the most celebrated Divines of the Church of England have not asserted and maintained. Of this the writings of Andrews, Mede, Taylor, Bull, &c. afford abundant proof. But to be a little more particular-That the souls of the faithful de. ceased may receive advantage, and an increase of happiness from the prayers of the living, is an opinion which has been contended for by some Divines both of the Church of England, and of the Episcopal Church of Scotland. For my own part, I see no sufficient evidence for this opinion; and I do not consider it as having any place at all in the Communion-office of the latter. The Episcopal Church of Scotland, in her Communion-office, does, it is true, suppose the existence of a middle state, and expresses her belief of the immortality of the soul, and the communion of saints, by commemorating the faithful departed. But what the Episcopal Church of Scotland does in her Communion-office, the Church of England, in her 55th canon, directs all preachers to do before their sermons; and actu. ally does in the office for the Burial of the Dead, in the prayer which be gins, "Almighty God." On this point, then, there is no essential difference between the two churches. The Prayer of Consecration, in the Communion-office of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, contains an invocation of the Holy Spirit, that the creatures of bread and wine may become the body and blood of God's most dearly-beloved Son. This, Dr. Grant insinuates, is favourable to the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, But his insinuation is perfectly groundless. When Jesus Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, he called the elements of bread and wine, his body and his blood. And can any false doctrine be countenanced by a Church which prays, that the elements of bread and wine may become what Jesus Christ himself called them? Since Jesus Christ called the elements of bread and wine his body and his blood, they must be so in some sense. But in what sense are they his body and his blood? The Episcopal Church of Scotland believes, that P 3 the |
