apology; it commends itself by its fruits, it lives in its fruits, and must ever live, though the name of its founder be forgotten, and not one of its doctrines survive.

We have wandered far from the subject of our critique. It is time we should return and take our final leave. It was not our intention in this brief review of Mr. Coleridge's literary merits to criticize in particular any one of the works whose titles stand at the head of this article. But the "Aids to Reflection," as containing an account of the author's religious views, demand a passing notice in a work like this. In his biography, Mr. Coleridge describes the state of his mind, with respect to religion, previous to his leaving England, by saying that his head was with Spinoza, and his heart with Paul and John; which means, we presume, that he found it impossible to reconcile his religion with his philosophy. In another passage, he tells us that he was at this time a Unitarian, "or more accurately a Psilanthropist,", which term he chooses to consider as synonymous with the former. We understand it very differently. Philanthropism, according to our definition, means Humanitarianism,- a doctrine which has no more necessary connexion with the Unitarian faith than with the Roman Catholic. In the "Aids to Reflection," our author would have us believe that he has accomplished at last the wished for reconciliation between his head and his heart. To us the breach seems as wide as ever. In this work he appears as a zealous Trinitarian, and a warm defender of the doctrines of the English church. We have no doubt of his sincerity; but unless we err greatly, he has either misunderstood his own views, or grossly misinterpreted the doctrines of his church. His view of the Trinity, as far as we can understand it, is as consistent with Unitarianism, to say the least, as his former psilanthropic scheme. His opinion of the atonement is far from Orthodox; the idea of vicarious suffering he rejects with disdain. The strong expressions used by St. Paul in reference to this subject, he tells us are not intended to designate the act of redemption, but are only figurative expressions descriptive of its effects. The act of redemption he calls a mystery," which term, as it may mean any thing, means, in reality, nothing. The other doctrines fare in the same way. Every thing is first mystified into a sort of imposing indistinctness, and then pronounced to be genuine Orthodoxy,

The truth is, Mr. Coleridge, though a great scholar, was not qualified in point of biblical learning for an undertaking like this. Many of his assertions, we are persuaded, would not have been hazarded, had he not taken his understanding of the New Testament for granted, but studied that book with the same diligence and perseverance which he appears to have bestowed upon other works. With these exceptions, however, we consider the "Aids to Reflection " as a very valuable work. The distinctions between prudence and morality, and between natural and spiritual religion, are sound and important.

On the whole, in summing up Mr. Coleridge's merits, we cannot but regard him as endowed with an intellect of the highest order, as a profound thinker, and a powerful writer, though not a successful poet or an amiable critic. As a translator, he has no equal in English literature. His prejudices are strong, his tastes confined, his pedantry often oppressive, his egotism unbounded. Yet we can never read a chapter in any one of his prose works, without feeling ourselves intellectually exalted and refined. Never can we sufficiently admire the depth and richness of his thoughts, the beauty of his illustrations, the exceeding fitness and force of all his words. If he is too minute in details to shine in the higher walks of literature, too anxious in the elaboration of single parts, to succeed in the total effect, it must be allowed that few compositions will bear so close an inspection, and still maintain their color and their gloss so well as his. If he divides nature and life and human art into too many particulars, it cannot be denied that his divisions, like those of the prism, give to each particular an individuality and a glory, which it did not possess while merged and lost in the whole to which it belonged. If he has produced far less than might have been expected from a mind so ready and so rich, we will nevertheless cheerfully accord to him the credit which he claims in his own appeal against a similar charge. "Would

* Mr. Coleridge's prejudices against the French nation, and all that belongs to them, are unreasonable and absurd in the extreme. He is said, upon one occasion, during the delivery of a public lecture, in the presence of a numerous assembly, to have thanked God in the most serious manner for so ordering events, "that he was entirely ignorant of a single word of that frightful jargon, the French language."

that the criterion of a scholar's utility were the number and moral value of the truths which he has been the means of throwing into the general circulation, or the number and value of the minds whom by his conversation or letters he has excited into activity, and supplied with the germs of their after-growth. A distinguished rank might not even then be awarded to my exertions, but I should dare look forward with confidence to an honorable acquittal."*

ART. VIII. Remarks on the Influence of Mental Cultiva tion upon Health. By AMARIAH BRIGHAM. Hartford. F. J. Huntington. 1832. 12mo. pp. 116.

THOUGH it has a grave title, this is a lively book, abounding in curious illustration, and occasionally seasoned with a spice of pleasant satire. Let no one, therefore, forbear to read it, under the impression that it is a dry disquisition, for it is as far from being so as possible. There is, moreover, a plenty of good sense in these "Remarks, " and though we cannot always give our full assent to the propositions which are advanced by their writer, we are of opinion that he has spoken on an important subject seasonably and well.

Mr., or Dr. Brigham, if he is a physician, he ought to have told us so on his title-page, is not afraid to express his disapprobation of the way in which instruction is too apt to be forced and crowded upon the mind in these very busy times; nor are we afraid of declaring that to a considerable extent we agree with him. He is of opinion that it is all wrong to be undermining the physical constitution of children, by making them puny prodigies of learning, - and we are of the same opinion. He insists that the brain may be overworked and overloaded as well as the stomach; and that by an injudicious fatigue of the mental faculties, the stomach is deranged, and people get the dyspepsia, and we think so too. These positions we regard as perfectly sound, and supported by facts which are before our daily observation. Some of the reasonings of Dr. Brigham which

wear a phrenological aspect, may be wrong; some of his conclusions may admit of exception and modification; but the practices against which he contends, we deem to be great evils, and the notions from which they spring to be palpable errors; and he has done battle against them like a worthy knight.

The summary of the results established in the first two Sections of this book, is thus stated. "The brain is the material organ by which all the mental faculties are manifested; it is exceedingly delicate, and but partially developed in childhood; over-excitement of it, when in this state, is extremely hazardous." Dr. Brigham goes on in his third Section, to show some of the evil consequences which have resulted from inattention to the connexion between the mind and the body, and is not sparing of his ridicule of the floods of books which have been prepared for very young children. Nor does he treat infant schools with the utmost respect. The following account of the character of early education, as it is practised by many of our sciolists, is not at all too

severe.

"The method of teaching little children, varies in different schools, but that is every where considered the best, which forces the infant mind the fastest. In some schools, the memory is chiefly cultivated, and children are taught innumerable facts. Here we see those who are scarcely able to talk, exhibited as wonderful children. They are declared to be deserving of the highest praise, and prophesied about as giving promise of great distinction in future, because they are able to tell us who was the oldest man, and many other equally useful and important facts. They are also able to tell us many truths in Astronomy, Geometry, Chemistry, &c. &c., of which the innocent beings. know about as much, as do parrots of the jargon they deliver. In other schools, teachers are opposed to such practice; and say that a child should learn nothing but what he understands; that the memory should not alone be cultivated; therefore they teach children that Methusaleh was not only the oldest man, and nine hundred and sixty-nine years of age, but that he was the son of Enoch, and the grandfather of Noah, and that a year means three hundred and sixty-five days, and a day twenty-four hours, and all this they teach in order, as they say, that a child may fully understand what he learns. Other teachers say, that it is very wrong to compel a child to learn; very wrong indeed; and that he should learn no more than he

will cheerfully; but though they do not gain their purpose by exciting fear, they awaken other passions of the strongest kind in the child, by a system of rewards and of praise. Now of all these methods, if there is any preference, it should be given to the first; for that is the least objectionable which has the least tendency to develope the mind, and awaken the passions prematurely. They must all, however, be wrong, if they call into action an organ which is but partially formed; for they do not conform to the requirements of the laws of nature, and wait for organs to be developed, before they are tasked.

"I beseech parents, therefore, to pause before they attempt to make prodigies of their own children. Though they may not destroy them, by the measures they adopt to effect this purpose, yet they will surely enfeeble their bodies, and greatly dispose them to nervous affections. Early mental excitement will serve only to bring forth beautiful but premature flowers, which are destined soon to wither away, without producing fruit." - pp. 49, 50.

In the fourth Section, we are presented with the "opinions of celebrated physicians respecting early mental cultivation." After reading these authorities, no one, we think, can fail of being impressed with the danger of forcing or even encouraging great mental application in the tender years of childhood. And yet we are disposed to believe that Dr. Brigham is urging his side of the question too far, as is apt to be the case with all zealous advocates. In spite of all the great names of physicians and phrenologists which can be brought against us, we must pronounce it to be a decided error to permit children to run wild without any regular instruction, and without any habits of application, till they are seven years old. We insist upon it, that a child may be taught much which is worth his knowing, and habits of docility and attention beside, before he is seven years old, without impairing his health in the least, if his education is conducted with any regard to the principles of common sense, and to the constitution and capacities of the subject; and that the difference between a child so brought up, and one who is taught nothing till his years have amounted to the magic number seven, will be the difference between a fine healthy child, and a fine healthy colt, or calf. Accordingly we subscribe not to the truth of the following table of M. Friedlander, introduced into this section of Dr. Brigham's work :