torted, confounded, and darkened by the subtilties and absurdities of scholastic theology, there was nothing to recommend the study of the Bible. While the Clergy had culti vated, with considerable zeal, metaphysical divinity, they had not neglected the seven liberal arts, the trivium and quadrivium of the early ages of the Church. Hence, they were at no loss to furnish abundant employment for the lay youth, under their charge. They needed not to dishonor the Master of Sentences, or the celebrated Doctors, styled the Invincible, the Angelic, or the Subtile, the Irrefragable, or the Seraphic, by unfolding the mysteries of their Metaphysical Theology to the eyes of the Laity. Nor is it surprising, that these should have preferred Homer and Aristotle, Cicero, Virgil and Ovid, (the great favorite of the dark ages) to the ponderous and gloomy folios of Monks and Schoolmen. They were incapable, it is true, of comprehending the genius, or of relishing the beauties of ancient eloquence or poetry; but the variety and novelty of încident and character, and the ease and spirit of the narrative, must have been eminently interesting, compared with aught else they could read.

Thus, the combination of these two causes led to a result never contemplated, and laid the foundation for the permanent exclusion of Religion from schemes of general education. When the laity were prohibited from the perusal of the Scriptures, the object was not to keep them ignorant of Religion, but to prevent them from interpreting what they were believed to be equally incompetent and unworthy to interpret, and thus to secure to the Church, absolute, exclusive authority to teach and expound the Scriptures. When the Laity dedicated themselves exclusively to the study of the Classics, it was not, because they regarded Heathen Mythology, as the true Religion, and Christianity as fabulous; but because they could find nothing in the works of Monks and Schoolmen, comparable to the Authors of Greece and Rome.

I now proceed to examine the causes, which have perpetuated the exclusion of the Scriptures, from schemes of liberal education, in Protestant countries. The principles of the Reformation, it is to be remembered, were essentially religious; but, in the course of their development, it occurred from the simplicity and comprehensiveness of their nature, that they embraced the whole circle of human knowledge. Hence it followed, that the system of education

would be remodeled. In doing this, we are not very much surprised, that. Religion should still have been excluded; because its prevailing spirit at that period, was controversial, and, as to its character, as a scheme of morals and a system of doctrines, these were left under the guardianship of the church.-Nor must we forget, that, receiving the plan of Education, as they did, without the Bible, and having so much to do, in removing the darkness, rubbish and absurdities, which deformed it, they may well have overlooked the question, "shall not the Bible be an inseparable part of all education from beginning to end?" When we consider,

likewise, that almost the only books, which could be had, were controversial, and chiefly in Latin, we are still less surprised at the result; more especially since those works were written by the learned, for the learned, against the learned. Hence, the Leaders of the Reformation seemed to have done all that was called for, under the existing state of things, when they incorporated religious education into the Ecclesiastical system, in the forms of prayer and psalmody, of creeds and confessions, of preaching and catechetical instruction.

Nor must we lose sight of some other considerations, which contributed to the existence of this phenomenon. The Old Testament was in Hebrew, a language, at the time of the Reformation, scarcely known to Christians. The founder of the modern school of Hebrew learning was Reuchlin, a Catholic; but the progress was very slow, and only a few engaged in its study." The Hebrew, indeed, was not then, and never has been regarded, (to the disgrace of Christians,) as a Classical language, with a view, either to Literature or Education. Neither the Septuagint nor the Vulgate could be accepted as a substitute. Both were deficient in authority, neither could be acknowledged as classical compositions, and both were considered by Protestants, as, in some respects, objectionable. In like manner, the New Testament, though in Greek, neither was then, nor has ever since, been regarded, (to the dishonor of Christians be it spoken,) as a Classic, in point of language and style. Another principal reason for the exclusion of the Bible, is found in the fact, that the study of its languages and history, of its evidences and antiquities, of its exegesis and connections with

* Note A.

profane history, of its doctrines and mysteries, had been always considered as peculiar to a Theological course, and, in no respect, an appropriate part of general education; as though the Bible were not, in the language of Chillingworth, the Religion of Protestants, both Clergy and Laity; and as though, to be ignorant on those subjects, were not disgraceful to any intelligent man, who professes to have received a liberal education. Yet no provision has ever been made for it, in systems of general education: doubtless in some measure because these things have been considered as confined to a theological course, which has been always decidedly sectarian. But a liberal course of truly Christian Studies, not indeed of sectarian divinity, ought to constitute the noblest feature in liberal education, commencing in the family, continued in the school, expanded in the academy, still farther perfected in the college, and accomplished in the university.*

The Reformation assumed, at a very early age, the sectarian character. The controversies between the several sects of the reformed, and the polemical warfare between the Protestants and Romanists, gave, by their combined influence, a still more decisive character of controversy to religion. The peculiar feeling, which belongs to separate communities, unenlightened by the pure, wise spirit of toleration of our day, aggravated by Church Establishments, and distorted by unnatural governments and artificial states of society, could not fail to prevent any liberal, enlarged scheme of action, on the foundation of the Scriptures. These, unhappily, were chiefly felt to be common ground, as to the Romish Church. Let us add to this, that the course of events led very naturally to the substitution of Catechisms, and Articles of Creeds, and Confessions, for the Scriptures, in schemes of instruction. After having translated the Bible into the vulgar tongue, and placed it in the power of the Laity, the great object with each sect appeared to be, not so much to teach the Scriptures, as to teach the peculiar views, which each entertained as to all others, as well as in relation to the Catholic Church. Hence, public worship, preaching, confessions, creeds, and catechetical instruction might be expected to fill the whole measure of religious education.

I fear that another reason must be assigned for the gross neglect, which religious education has experienced, even

* Note B.

at the hands of the Clergy. When placed at the head of schools and colleges, experience justifies too much the opinion, that overlooking the Ministerial character, they consider themselves only as Scholars.-They seem to forget, that they are laid under an obligation to teach religion, as well as literature and science. Man has indeed commissioned them, to instruct the young, in these departments of knowledge; but have they forgotten, that the vow is upon them, to teach the everlasting gospel? It may be excusable to decline a pastoral charge, as incompatible with the extent and variety of their duties, as instructors. But, how can they reconcile it to themselves, how can they stand acquitted in the sight of God, as his servants and ambassadors, when the Bible is actually placed under the ban of outlawry, in all their systems of instruction? When they themselves never appear to their pupils, but in the character of laymen? When, excepting the chapel prayers, no one could ever suspect, that to them was confided the cure of souls, as well as the cure of minds? Would the Apostles have acted thus?

The existing schemes were, of course, brought to our own country, and subsisted in full force, up to the time of our becoming Independent. Then appeared that new era, which combined all religious denominations, in one common bond of union, against the mother country. The abolition of all sectarian political distinctions and advantages, and the reduction of all to a common level, were but natural results of their mutual dependence, and of the practical principle of the Reformation, that all had a right to think, and judge, and act for themselves. In point of numbers, wealth, talents and learning, no sect was endowed with such power and influence, as to aim at supremacy. Hence, their partnership, in the glorious cause of political liberty and nationtional independence, expanded itself, till it comprehended the advocates and champions of freedom, under the still mote glorious fellowship of Christian equality.

The leading sects of Protestants in the United States, have always agreed in essentials: and all have acknowledged, without any qualification, that the Bible is the religion of Protestants. But they have differed in minor particulars, each from the other, in a greater or less degree. As, however, and it is too much the common course, they found religion, after the Revolution, not a part of the general scheme of education, they do not appear to have ever considered the question, what reform ought to be made, or, if they did,

they were deterred from any attempt by the unhappy jealou sies, which still subsist too much among them, and by the absence of a truly christian spirit of mutual love and mutual labor. When it is considered also, that it has always been a common practice for youth of various denominations, to frequent the same schools, academies and colleges, it was to have been expected, that this state of things should contribute a very ample share to the exclusion of religion, as a regular, continued part of general education. Unfortunately, religion has been always regarded, far more than was right, in its controversial character. The obvious effect has been, to exclude it from any plan of general education; because, it never could be omitted in that form, into any such scheme and if it were so admitted, the effect would be to banish at once the children of every other denomination.*

It well becomes Protestants, and especially the Protestant Clergy, to consider, whether their mutual jealousies, and want of truly christian liberality, are not the main causes, why Heathen predominates so vastly over Christian Literature, in all our schemes of education. I fear that each values his peculiar sect, more than his common religion, and his own confession or articles, more than the common standard, the Bible. It is not wonderful that such a spirit should still persevere in excluding the Bible from the school and college. But, I trust that the truly christian influences, which are now spreading abroad over the whole world, will do much toward substituting Christian fellowship for sectarian jealousy, and christian for heathen influences throughout the whole course of education. I would not, indeed, have the architecture of Antiquity defaced, nor the Classics burnt, as is said to have been the fate of both, at the hands of Gregory the Great; but I would dethrone the latter from their despotic control in our schools and colleges, over the hearts, the consciences and the understandings of the young. I would degrade them from the rank of masters, to the condition of servants, in the education of Christian children.

Thus, the original absence of religion, as a feature of general education, sectarian jealousy, the want of a practical spirit of christian liberality, the controversial character of religion, the apparent efficiency of public worship and of catechetical instruction, and the intermixture of the children of

* Note C.