1802.] Dr. Rennell’s Recommendation of the Study of Gr. Philofophy. 43 
be made; yet, were it generally practifed, 
it would prove an injury to a confiderable 
part of the hides and fkins. Juttice to the 
public as well as the manufacturer has in- 
duced me to fend you thefe obfervations, 
which I believe are founded in fact. 
April 19, A ConsranT ReEaDER. 
1802. 
= 
- Io the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
VERY fharp, though not a very 
long or very learned, controverfy 
has taken place between Dr. Vincent, the 
Head-mafter of Weftminfter-fchool, and 
Dr. Rennell, the Matter of the Temple, 
on the fubjeét of public education. Dr. 
Rennell, in a note to a Sermon preached 
before the Society for promoting Chriftian 
Knowledge, in 1799, at St. Paul’s Church, 
~on the Anniverlary Meeting of the Chil- 
dren educated at the Charity-fchocls in 
London, and which was afterwards pub- 
lifhed by the Society, fays, ‘¢ There is 
{carcely an internal danger which we fear, 
but what is to be afcribed to a Pagan 
education, under Chriftian eftablifhments, 
in aChriftian country.” As thecelebrity 
of Dr. Rennell, as a preacher, has given 
great force as well as currency to his opi- 
nions ; and as the fame fentiment has been 
reiterated by the learned, pious, and re- 
verend Bifhop of Meath, in a note to his 
Sermon the following year, before the 
fame congregation; it was not to be ex- 
pected that it would be paffed over in 
filence : and accordingly a very able de- 
fence of public or Pagan education, as it is 
called, generally, has appeared from the 
pen of Dr. Vincent. One circumftance 
oniy feems to have been omitted by the 
learned Doétor, and that was probably 
owing to his amiable candour, in not 
wifhing to expofe his adverfary to the 
fcorn, derifion, and contempt of mankind ; 
for nothing, I think, can tend fo much to 
produce thefe effects, as to fhew a man’s 
apoftacy from the opinions he formerly 
gravely and deliberately gave, without 
any change in the circumitances having 
taken place to affe&t them. That this is 
precifely Dr. Rennell’s cafe, there will be 
no difficulty in proving: out of his own 
mouth will I convict him. 
Dr. Rennell, in a note (an article of 
which he is very fond, and with which 
his fermons abound as much as his poetry) 
to a fermon preached before the Uniyer- 
fity of Cambridge, Commencement-Sun- 
day, 1798, fays, ‘* Under thefe principles 
I know of no fubject fo pregnant iz zm- 
portant confequences as a confideration of 
the extremes of weaknefs and ftrength, 
exhibited by the ancient Greek philofo. 
phers. Thefe circumftances, if duly 
weighed, will point out to the wifdom of 
this Univerfity the extreme importance of 
combining the ftudy of the ancient Greek 
philofophy with our Theological refearches. 
‘The foundations of the evidences of Re- 
velation will be greatly ftrengthened, dy 
obferving, with accuracy, the light the Pa- 
gans attually obtained, and in difcovering 
the infurmountable boundary which in- 
terrupted their further progrefs. I have 
ever confidered the works of Plato, Arifiotle, 
and the moral writings of Cicero.and Plu- 
tarch, as an avenue and portico to Chrif= 
tianity. I am convinced, from fome ex- 
perience, that minds embued with the 
precepts of thefe men, /frengthened with | 
their wifdom, and elevated with their dig- 
nity, will be ftrongly pre-difpofed, both 
from a review of their exceilencies and 
defects, to clofe in with the evidences of 
that Gofpel which brought life and im- 
mortality to light. Lhe minds of our young 
men fo formed would be inaccefiible to the 
filly and ignorant fophifins of Voltaire, 
Rouffeau, Condorcet, D’Alembert, and 
Volney. They would confider them not 
as feductions to their virtue, but as in- 
fults to their underftanding. Their re- 
jection would be accompanied with an ho-~ 
nourable difdain of the fhallownefs of the 
impotture offered to them.” 
With fuch language and fentiments in: 
favour of Pagan writers, and fuch exhor- 
tations to the ufe of them, before ove of 
the moft learned bodies in the world, opi- 
nions maturely, gravely, and deliberately 
given, on fome experience too, he fays— 
who could poffibly have thought that a _ 
man {fo learned, fo pious, fo devout, as 
Dr Rennell, with fuch a frame and temper 
of mind too, as he poffefes, could, without 
the imalleft change in the manner of con- 
ducting our public fchools and jeminaries, 
in one little year, have come forward, like 
a faake im the grafs, to reprobate the prac- 
tice he had fo ftrenuoufly advifed, and to 
brand and f{tigmatize our fyftem of public 
education, as replete with every internal 
danger whicn has been feared for the laft 
ten years. If, therefore, Di. Rennell has 
any fenfe of fhame, any feeling for the 
lofs of dignity and virtue, any regard to 
confiltency and propriety of conduét, his 
recantation ought to be as public as his 
accufation—till then he can no Jonger be 
confidered as the moft redoubted champion 
of religion, morality, and fecial order, 
which he would fain be accounted, but rot 
by A Lover or ConsisTency. 
To 
