112 On the Ufes of Claffical Learning: 
ought to be men in the chriftian church who fhould 
be able to read the holy fcriptures in their original 
languages, to correct miftranflations, to compare and 
collate manufcripts, and to detec& errors of every 
kind; muft every plain country clergyman be an 
adept in languages, which cannot afford him the leaft 
affiftance in inftruéting and informing the poor 
and illiterate flock, which is committed to his care ? 
——He cannot preach in Latin; the plaineft and leaft 
pedantic ftile is that which will be moft beneficial to 
his hearers; nay the ruft of college manners,’ or the 
unyielding fpizit of literary arrogance, are per- 
. haps qualities, more directly than others, calculated 
to ob{truct or to fruftrate his pious labours. 
In medicine, you, Sir, are I am fure too liberal 
not to fee that the ufe of a dead language lias cer- 
tainly impeded, rather than advanced fcience. Who 
will pretend to alledge that the modern practitioner 
is obliged to have recourfe to the ancients for the 
principles of his art? ‘The Englifh language, if we 
include the tranflations from foreign authors, con- 
tains a body of medicine, ample and voluminous 
enough to engage the attention of moft practitioners, 
and to furnifh them with every practical kind of 
information. Would it not really be better for man- 
kind, would it not prevent the moft fatal miftakes, 
if prefcriptions were written in our own language, 
inftead of thofe uncouth characters, which frequently 
appear like hieroglyphics, and are too often abfolutely 
fo to thofe who are to prepare the medicine? In 
fhort 
