On the Ufes of Claffical Learning. es 
acquaintance as poffible with the illuftrious dead ; 
to hold, as it were, a friendly converfation with 
them, in their own language, and in their own 
peculiar ftyle. 
If thefe, however, were the only reafons for the 
cultivation of Claffical Literature, though they might 
intereft the philofopher, and the man of tafte, ftill 
we could not in juftice allow them that univerfal 
cogency, which is neceffary to fanction a general 
Practice. ‘There muft be other motives to warrant 
the hardfhip, which is impofed on almoft every 
well-born youth, of confuming in fevere ftudy, 
feveral of the moft gay and delightful years of 
life, and of encountering hardfhips, which nothing 
but an object of fome importance can juftify. | 
Without wifhing to appear a lover of paradox, 
permit me, dear Sir, to ftate that I do not in my 
own mind allow much force to the maxim which 
infifts on the abfolute neceffity of claffical learning 
in what are called the Profeffions: I confefs, I 
think it a moft pernicious pedantry which would 
involve in any kind of myftery, thofe fciences which 
are moft effential to human happinefs. ‘The Chrif- 
tian world has been no. gainer either as to piety or 
motals by ipeculative divinity; all that is neceflary 
to mankind in theology ought to be, and I doubt 
not is, plain and, eafy to be comprehended by every 
capacity. —What! fhall none but Greek and Latin 
{cholars be permitted to make ufe of their reafon on 
the moft neceffary topics? Admitting that there 
ought 
