CLXXIX.A CONCESSION. “Latin, indeed, (fays the true Englishman) an academical language!-a learned language, forfooth!-and, is this the game played at your univerficies ?—Do you thus learn to clip the King's coin?-Does your Alma Mater thus encourage you to trick us out of our native language?" This gentleman is entitled to the greateft respect from every academic; and will obtain it from all Britons, who are not either knaves or fools, whether they wear a gown, or only a plain unfor he is defcended of a graduated coat; very ancient family, poffeffed of many undoubted,inalienable, rights, connected with his language and whether they are natural rights, or fuch as he claims by inheritance, (and we are alluding to fomething more ancient than nobility,) it is a pity he fhould be deprived of any one. : The right ufe of our own language may even be a preservative against oppref fion. The Latin is certainly a rich, a noble, a claffical, language; and a language, as already remarked, which has been the vehicle of the arts and fciences through Europe. Lord Bacon, therefore, calls it, though not in the philofophical fenfe, the univerfal language. On thefe principles Alma Mater is to be juftified in her partiality to the Latin tongue and fo far is to be vindicated from the charge of rafh : adoption and intemperate fondness. But with all fober ferioufnefs, and laying afide all unwarrantable partialities, we acknow-ledge that thefe queftions involve a real charge, to which ALMA MATER would do well to attend. It is certain, then, that the Latin is not the root of the English language; though, by its general acceptance among us, it has been fometimes fuffered to force its fhoots into the trunk too violently, fo as to weaken the force of our native idioms, and to mar the proportion of feveral parts of our language. Indeed the idiom of the Greek language approaches that of the English nearer than the Latin. "Our ancient English Saxon language, as every body knows, (though we here borrow the words of an author of great authority*,) is to be accounted the Teutonic tongue; and albeit we have, in latter ages, mixed it with many borrowed words, especially out of the Latin and the French, yet remaineth the Teutonic unto this day the ground of our Ipeech; for no other offspring hath our language originally had than that."Certain it is, that an academical education leads men too often to fofter another opinion, or at least practically to adopt it ; and a true-born Englishman has reason to complain. A defect was mentioned in a former number-the want of a profefforship for Political Economy at Cambridge; and here another must be added, the want of a profefforfhip in the Saxon language Such a profefforfhip might check the undue ufe of Latin, and be the means of removing the charge brought against young men from our public fchools, and gentlemen from the universities, that though they understand Latin, they are defective in the knowledge of their own mothertongue, their English being often rather Latin-English than Saxon-English compofition. It is not improbable that many intelligent readers have caught Cantabrigiana occafionally tripping with its lame Latin leg, where it ought to have proceeded firmo pede and erecto vultu, in the true English fashion. The University of Oxford has got the start of Cambridge here, having very wifely inftituted, fome years ago, a profefforfhip for the Saxon language; and a member of St. John's College, Oxford, publifhed a book, fhewing the readielt way of learning the Saxon, which is, to apply the English immediately under it word by word, and the Saxon reads like what we call broken English. But though Alma Mater has been defective in this refpect, fome of her fons, who have ftudied the philofophy of language, have fupplied the defect: they have difentangled the English language from heterogeneous mixtures, and hewn its true origin and its proper excellencies. Of two works of this kind, written by two acute and learned members of the Univerfity of Cambridge, we may probably take the liberty of faying fomething on a future occafion. CLXXX- CALVINISM. John Calvin was profeffor of divinity at Geneva, and published, anno 1559, a book, intitled Inftituta Chriftiana Religi onis, containing the marrow of the doctrine of predeftination, and the other doctrines connected with it. This work was written in early life, and is much indebted to the writings of Augustin, who, according to Calvin, was the only man of all the ancients who kept within bounds in extolling the faculties of the human will. Calvin's Inftitutes, however, is written with eloquence, and presents a very comprehenfive view of his fubject. The Dedication to the King of France has been greatly admired for its franknefs, and is furpaffed only by Robart Barclay's Addrefs to Charles II. prefixed to his Apology for the Quakers. But Calvin's writings are, notwithstanding, dogmatical and fourrilous; thofe whom he oppofes are canes, nebulones, beftia, diaboli; and one of his devils he committed to the flames: and even the gentle, the moderate Melanchton approved the godly deed and even the enlightened Socinus impr foned an opponent. Such was the spirit of the times! Intolerance was the order of the day with all! The leading points in Calvin's Inft:tutes are these :—“ Adæ lapfu et defectione totum humanum genus maledictioni fuiffe addictum, et a prima origine degeneraffe. Hominem arbitrii libertate, in rebus ad Deum pertinentibus, nune effe fpoliatum.-Ex corrupta hominis natura, nihil nifi damnabile prodire.-Hominem juftificari coram Deo fide in Chrifti meritis fine operibus.-Electione æterna alios ad falutem, alios ad interitum Deum prædeftinaffe. Electionem fanciri Dei vocatione: Perfeverentiam ele&torum tantum propriam." But what has Calvinifm to do with the Univerfity of Cambridge? Clearly this. The Articles of the Church of England are Calvinistic; and confequently it will fall in our way to fpeak of fome men of nur literary republic, diftinguish ed for talents and learning, who have fa voured that doctrine, as we have, on a former occafion, of Catholics, Puritans, Arians, Socinians, &c. But how does it appear that the articles of the Church are Calvinistic? A. comparison of the articles themselves with the points above quoted, fufficiently fhew it; and the writings of the reformers ftill further prove it. But this has been denied by many : and Dr. Kipling, the deputy-profeffor of divinity, at Cambridge, wrote a pamphlet, two or three years ago, to prove the contrary position, viz. that the thirtynine articles are to be understood in the Arminian fenfe. Would Calvinist divines lay down Arminian articles? If the articles themselves, and the writings of the reformers, do not afford fufficient proof, that the articles were given originally in the Calvinistic fenfe, let the following confiderations be taken into the account, and it amounts to demonftration. John Calvin obtained fo much autherity in his time, as to give a name almost to all the churches which feparated from the Romish communion. "Ob le grand bomme ! il n'y a ancien à comparer à lui. Il à fibien entendu l'escriture! SOLUS CALVINUS IN THEOLOGICs," exclaims even Scaliger. The reformed, at firit, or the pretended reformed, as the Catholics cailed them, almost all favoured Calvin's doctrines, and prided themselves in having as good a uniformity of faith as the Church of Rome itself.They even published a concord of faiths, a corpus confeffionum, and thefe may all be feen in Quick's Synodicon. They are all Calvin ftic, and the confeflion of the Church of England may be found among them. To this may be added, ftill later, what Mr. Collins fays in a Difcourfe of Freethinking. Our priests "for many years after the Reformation, were generally Calviniits, or Predeftinarians, as is evident-from the Bibles printed in Queen Elizabeth's time, to which are often annexed, an Apology for Predeftination ;from the fuffrage of the divines of Great Britain, delivered by them to the fynod of Dort, March 16, 1619, as the fenfe of the Church of England, where the five points, as they are called, are all determined on the Calvinistical fide, agreeably to the decifions of that holy fynod-and lafly, from all their books to the time of Bishop Laud." And let this fuffice for the doctrine-of those who taught it here. after. CLXXXI. CLXXXI.-ARMINIANISM. Arminius was profeffor of divinity at the University of Leyden; an eminent oppugner of Calvin's fentiments. There is no occafion to ftate Arminius's fentiments at large, as Calvin's have already been given. Suffice it to fay, that the difpute turns on the different acceptations of the terms, original fin, grace, predeftination, effectual calling, juftification, perfeverance; Calvin fuppofing, that, of the good contained in these doctrines, the elect only are partakers, the non-elect being bound under what his opponents call the borrendum decretum ; Arminius, on the other hand, fuppofing, that the promifes and grace of the Gospel belong to all, that man is only punishable for his own tranfgreffions, and his voluntary rejection of the means of grace. We fhall not inquire what right the reformers had to give a specific fyltem of doctrine to bind the confciences of all their posterity; nor fhall we inquire how far thote clergymen are to be followed, who, fince the time of Laud, have given an Arminian fenfe to these articles; at least, who have found out a via media. The bufinefs of this work is only to state facts in regard to thefe matters; and, of course, to Ipeak of Calvinifts and Arminians, not to enter into their school of controverfies. And we affuredly never mean, in thefe papers, to fpeak derogatorily of liberty, to the full extent of the word; but let this fuffice for the prefent. Of Arminians a few words hereafter. CLXXXII.UNBELIEVERS. Unbelievers are of various characters, of different degrees, and of different principles. Some profefs to believe, but fecretly are unbelievers; fome, doubting, rather than rej &ting, are more properly fceptics; others reject from conviction, but only the Mofaic and Chriftian writings; and others, all religions, whether natural or revealed. Of the latter number was Mirabaud. His opinion was, that man's belief in a divinity arofe from the evil that he perceived in the world: that the notion, however, was a mistaken one: and that the proper remedy for, thofe evils was, in truth, in ideas founded upon nature, and in adhering to the laws of reafon and benevolence. Those who embrace natural religion, that is, the belief in a first caufe, from confidering the material and intellectual worlds, have fometimes rejected the Mofaic history, as exhibiting a partial view of the Deity, whom they fay it reprelents cruel, revengeful, and unjust. Christianity they difcard as depending on the credibility of the Mofaic writings. All nations, fay fome, have had their prophets, their poets, men of strong imagination: but prophecy, as a part of a divine revelation, they fet afide. Thus Spinoza wrote concerning prophecy. All nations, too, fay others, are reported to have had their miracles. But thefe depend for evidence on teftimony: the evidence of our fenfes, fay they, is ftronger than all teftimony, than all human tradition. And thus Hume wrote concerning miracles. Many diftinguifhed philofophers, metaphyficians, and critics, have been either fceptics or unbelievers. With respect to the writings called the New Testament, opinions are very numerous, both as to the books themselves, and to the doctrines contained in them. We have already spoken concerning fome doctrines, in treating of different fects.With respect to the canon, after all the HARMONIES which have been written, many contend that the writings are contraditory to each other, involved in labyrinths of endlefs errors, and quite irreconcileable to all principles of just reasoning. The Gofpels, as we now have them, called canonical, (though Christians themselves ftill are not unanimous in receiving all,) are four; but there are numerous other Gofpels that have been rejected, such as the Evangelium Nativitatis Mariæ; 11pwrevayyɛhicv ayıs laxw68; the Evangelium Infantia; the Evangelium Nicodemi ; and various others. They have been publifhed by Fabricius. One particular council fettled which of all the gospels fhould be received as authentic. And of the reit, the Church has fince faid, with Sanctus Hieronymus, Diabolum in Apocry phis infidiari. But it has been asked, are there greater improbabilities recorded in the latter than in the former ? This, and fimilar questions, it belongs not to the Cantabrigiana to reply to for our bufinefs is with unbelievers, of whom more hereafter. CLXXXIII.-JUDAISM. "What concern have Jews with the univerfity? This question implies a defeat. Why fhould not the Jews be concerned with it? Do you worship Jeho. vah Eloheim; or, adore only divinam naturam? fhould have no more to do with the literary advantages of a univerfity, than What do you think of the mountains in the moon, or the inhabitants of Jupiter? "If a Roman Catholic (fays Locke wifely) believe that to be really the body of Chrift, which another man calls bread, he SIR, W HEN a man undertakes to place any object of art or nature in a new light, he may expect to fee his attempt oppofed, and a little reflection will fhew him the neceffity of fuch oppofition; for nothing is better calculated to difcover the true value of literary and fcientific novelties than judicious controversy, becaufe it eftablishes thofe theories which deferve approbation, and at the fame time difcards all falfe and nugatory doctrines. On the contrary, if a foc ety of periodical critics happen to mifreprefent an author's opinions, either from defign or ignorance, his conduct will require but little apology, fhould he refolve to vindicate his fentiments by exposing the faults of his opponents. The preceding remarks are defcriptive of my fituation in respect of the Edinburgh Reviewers; an affociation of young wri ters, who refuse quarter even to the unoffending, and who, on this account, have no right to expect their errors to be concealed. A Paper of mine appeared in the fifth volume of the Manchester Memoirs, the defign of which is, to inveftigate the nature of the faculty which enables men to determine the relative positions of sounding bodies by the ear. The primary topic of the Effay is divided into three diftinct operations, more for the fake of perfpicuity, than to conform to the plan of nature. These are, direct hearing, oblique hearing, and the perception, which difcovers the elevation or depreffion of a founding body relative to the head of the hearer. The Edinburgh critics feem to understand my demonitiations of the two first cafes, and honour this part of the Ef fay with fomething refembling their approbation; for they pronounce it to be a mathematical demonftration of a popular notion; but omit to inform us in what country this notion is fo prevalent. The third head of my paper, however, is frangely mifreprefented in the third num ber of the Review in question, from motives which I leave the conductors of it to vindicate or excufe, as they think proper. It is true they have attempted to justify their treatment of this part of my paper by prefenting the reader with my own words; but then the artifice, if it be one, is not managed with the ufual addrefs of thofe controverfial writers, who make artful quotations for finifter purposes; be. caufe the extract felected by these gentlemen is far from eftablishing the ridiculous fentiments which they endeavour to impofe upon the public in my name.This extract confifts of an experiment, which is intended to prove the head to be a fenfitive folid, fufceptible of topical irritation, from the delicate impulfes of founds. It alfo fhews this faculty to be more exquifite in parts adjacent to the ears, than in the forehead, which, in its turn, is more alive to vibratory impref fions than the back of the head and the lower parts of the face. Had the Reviewer, who profeffes to quote my words in full on the fubject, perufed pages 643-4 of the work he undertakes to criticize, he might have seen, if he was defirous of being convinced, the ufe to which the latter of the two former obfervations has been applied by me, and for which alone it was introduced into my Effay. The intention of giving this remark a place in my Paper, was to explain, by help of it, an apparent imperfection in the fenfe of hearing. But he has overlooked the paragraph laft cited, from motives of laziness, or a wifh to mitreprefent; for he makes my explanation of the faculty whereby men judge of the elevation of founding bodies, to be connected with the unequal powers of the before-mentioned fenfibility, which are found to obtain in different parts of the head. After making this fale ftatement, he pronounces the whole to be hypothetical, and palpably untrue, but does not defcribe the nature of the mysterious connection, which fhould have been done, in his own words, for obvious reasons. The explanation of the phenomenon, as it ftands in the Edinburgh Review, is hypothetical and untrue; but then the hypothetis is not mine; at beft it is a negligent blunder of the Reviewer. My explanation is at page 641 of the fifth volume of the Manchester Memoirs, and may be briefly stated in the following manner. The topical irritation produced by a given found, is impressed on a particular portion of the head; the fituation of which is known to the hearer in confequence of his intimate acquaintance with the external firucture of this member. He also knows to what part of the heavens the portion thus excited is directed at the time; and experience has taught him, that the quarter to which it points is the place of the found. An experiment was omitted in the Effay I am defending, which is now offered to the public through the medium of your Journal, because it seems to prove the relative places of founds to be difcovered by the co operation of the ears and external teguments of the head. Let a man provide two tubes, which are open at both ends, and fufficiently wide to receive his ears; after adjusting them to the opposite fides of his head, let him attend to a found which is continuous and ftationary, taking care at the fame time to turn and bend his neck, so as to place the tubes in various pofitions relative to the founding body. What will be the rational event of the experiment, on the fuppofition that the fenfibility is imaginary, which I have afcribed to the external teguments? All the pulfes capable of exciting fenfation in this particular cafe, will evidently arrive at the organs of hearing in paths which are parallel to the two tubes; confequently that tube which receives the ftronger vibrations from the MONTHLY MAG, No. 115. fource of the found, will indicate it to be fituated in its own axis produced; just as an ear placed in a narrow paffage, fuppofes founds to move indifcriminat ly in the direction of that paffage. This is the genuine conclufion from the premises, but it is falte; for the ufe of the tubes does not prevent a perfon from discover ing the place of a found. On the contra ry, when a man introduces his head into a narrow pallage, he thereby lofes this power of difcrimination. What reply can the oppofers of my theory make to these facts? After tracing the primary object of the Effay to phyfical principles, I have drawn the following corollary from it. If a ventriloquist can perfuade a bystander that his voice comes from an object not in the right line joining their perfons, the latter does not hear the speaker's voice, but an echo of it. 1 his corollary is rejected by the Reviewers, apparently to make way for a moral hypothefis. Though this writer admits my theory of direct and oblique hearing, he imprudently maintains that the hearer's expectation is excited by the art of the ventriloquist, so as to let afide the evidence of his ears. If a fedentary mechanic be in the habit of hearing a clock at the right hand of his feat, can the powers of expectation continue the delufion when the clock is removed unknown to him? Until this question is anfwered in the affirmative, the moral hypo thefis mult give place to the physical theory. JOHN GOUGH. Middlefhaw, March 28, 1804. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. A SIR, PAPER has just been put into my hand, intitled, "Commerce of the United States with Foreign Parts, in SeaSalt." The name of the author is not given with it; but it was first printed in a periodical work, published at New York, intuled "The Medical Repofitory," has been fince circulated with a good deal of industry in America, and appears to have excited confiderable attention there. In this Paper the yellow-fever, and the various peftilential difeafes which have long been fo prevalent in America, are afcribed to the falt brought from Liverpool, which is ftated to be "weak and impure ;" and the author ftrongly impreffes upon his countrymen the neceffity of avoiding the ufe of this pernicious article of import," if they wish to escape thefe infectious disorders. That it may not be ima 3 M gined |