act, who excludes from his scheme of education, the eloquence of him, who spake as never man spake; and the poetry of Prophets, unrivaled in Grecian, Roman, and Arabian Literature! The Mahomedans valued the Koran too highly, to pollute their sacred volume, by the false and corrupt mythology of Grecian verse; but Christians not only expose the young, designedly and joyfully, to the unhallowed influences of Paganism; but these are constituted almost the vicegerents of education, in history and eloquence, in rhetoric, poetry and morals. The French Poet D'Aurat employed the latter years of his life, in the attempt to discover, as he believed he could, the whole Bible in Homer: and, assuredly, one might almost be excused for the opinion, that the authors of schemes of education, in Christian countries, either set very little value on the Bible, or thought, with D'Aurat, that its sublime morals, its spotless purity, its eternal sanctions, and spirit of peace, order, humility and love, would be discovered by youth, in the study of Homer and Virgil, of Cicero, Sallust, and Cæsar.

"Adolescens rempublicam defendi," says Tully, "senex haud deseram ;" but while the Christian believes, that moral education is far more important than mental, and that the former is indispensable for youths, he abstracts them during their studies, almost wholly from the only scheme of morals, which teaches them to defend and never to forsake the cause of God, in youth, in manhood, or in old age. When Herault de Sechelles inquired of Buffon, how many authors ought to be thoroughly and profoundly studied, he replied, there are only five, Bacon, Newton, Leibnitz, Montesquieu, and myself. If the Christian were asked the same question, he would not dare to name the Bible first, and second, and third, as Demosthenes named delivery; for his schemes of education would rise up in judgment against him. On the one hand, he admits, that we should train up a child in the way, in which he should go, that when he is old he may not depart therefrom; whilst on the other, he makes religion no part of the plan of education. Nulla dies sine lined, the maxim of the ancient painter, becomes his rule for youth, in the study of geography and grammar, of languages, rhetoric and geometry. But hopeless would be the search for a Christian Institution, in which the painter's maxim is applied to the Scriptures. One might have supposed that Christians, esteeming Religion as the pearl above all price, would have considered it an insult to the majesty of God,

contemptuous to the Holy Volume, and a reproach to themselves, to tolerate any scheme of education, of which Christian duty and the Bible, were not a prominent feature, an inseparable part. Every day that he lived, Cyprian called) for the works of Tertullian, in the language of admiration and gratitude, "Da mihi magistrum." And, assuredly, not a day should elapse in any seminary, however humble or lofty, but the pupil should be taught, in imitation of the African Prelate, to dedicate a portion of his time to the study of our best and greatest Master, the only fountain of happiness, the only standard of duty, the Bible.

If it be conceded, as it undoubtedly must be, that the Scriptures are the only test of truth, and the only guide to our duties, how exceedingly incomplete must every plan of education be, which does not require of the young, to study daily this standard and this guide. If, indeed, the young be exposed to the sectarian spirit and dogmatical style of a divinity professor, more devoted to his own creed, than to the Bible, we are not surprised, that he should acquire among them, the Cambridge nickname "Malleus Hereticorum." Assuredly, however, no man would deserve or receive that title, who should reject the Metaphysics of polemical divin- ity, for the admirable common sense of the Sermon on the Mount and the scholastic logic of sectarian christianity, for the practical simplicity and beauty, benevolence and holiness, that plead so eloquently in the life and death, in the character and sentiments of the Redeemer. Let it not be said, that men cannot be found thus to teach. The experiment has been actually and successfully tried, to a limited extent, in Sunday Schools. If, indeed, you appoint a Professor to explain and vindicate a particular creed, you could scarcely look for any other than the unhappy fruits, which would unavoidably flow from sectarian religion, as a part of general education. Let religion, in this form, be appropriated to the church, to catechisms, to theological seminaries, and even to the Sunday school. But, if you require of every instructor, to teach the duties of life, from the Bible, I at least, believe, that you would have nothing to fear. I speak advisedly, in expressing this opinion. Most teachers are laymen, and these unquestionably are less devoted to sectarian distinctions, and are much less influenced by the esprit de corps, than the clergy. If, instead of a sectarian text-book, the Bible be given to teachers, as their standard for instruction, it must be obvious, that the risk of their per

*

A

verting it to answer party views, is unworthy of notice. very strong illustration of this remark, is found in the prac tice of clergymen themselves. Almost all of them, are settled in churches, established with a view to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of particular denominations: and yet how rarely are sermons purely sectarian, heard from their lips! As a farther illustration, take the same persons, send them forth to preach, not to their own, but to a mixed congregation, and still more rarely do we hear a sectarian discourse. How much more improbable then, would sectarian instruction be from laymen, whose studies, habits, and intercourse, are a still farther security for their good sense and discretion.

Let it not be said, that most teachers are incompetent to give religious instruction, and that such would sometimes come with an ill-grace from those, who honored religion, neither in precept, nor in practice. The first part of the objection seems to imply, that profound and various knowledge is necessary; but this is an error. When some one requested the direction of Cardinal Pole, in studying the Epistles of St. Paul, he advised him, first to master those, which are preceptive and practical, and afterwards such as are chiefly devoted to mysteries and doctrines. Teachers, in like manner, even if left to themselves, would prefer the Gospels to the Epistles. But this would undoubtedly be matter of regulation, like every other branch of the general scheme. The second part of the objection also deserves notice, for it supposes an inconsistency between the life and instructions of the Teacher. The first happy effect of the new system would be to make Parents, and Guardians, and Trustees, more circumspect in their choice. Is there a capable instructor, whose sentiments and conduct are not decidedly favorable to religion? At present, he receives employment; but change the plan, and you would never engage him, because he would have to teach from the Bible. Our seminaries have, at times, been dishonored by men, who have been addicted to intemperance and profane swearing, who have spoken and written disrespectfully of religion, who profane the Sabbath, and rarely, if ever, attend the worship of Christian assemblies. Such men could not be patronized under a scheme, embracing the daily study of the Bible. Whilst education is regarded as merely secular and intellectual, the moral character, in those particulars, will not be scrutinized before, nor observed after the appoint

ment. Again, I draw an illustration from the experience in all schools. Is it not a common remark, that to teach others, is the most effectual mode of self-improvement, in the branches taught? No one doubts this, in the case of grammar and geography, rhetoric, languages and mathematics. And why should it not be equally true, with religious instruction? The testimony of Sunday Schools favors my argument; for, it is well known to all, who take an interest in them, that the character of the Teacher has been repeatedly improved, by the instruction of the children entrusted to him.

Let us now inquire, whether manifest advantages are not presented, in relation to the pupil. And first let us examine such arguments, as are founded on the supposition, that the scheme is unnecessary. If this be so, it must be either, because the subject is unworthy of any attention, or because it receives elsewhere sufficient attention. The first view, most assuredly will not be ventured by any one. Let us consider the second. That the public services of the Sabbath are not at all a substitute, must be obvious to every one who reflects; for the great majority of sermons are neither adapted to the capacity, nor are they intended for the improvement of the young. Catechetical instruction is not a substitute; because it is exceedingly limited, and has almost unavoidably a large infusion of sectarianism. Nor is the Sunday School system a substitute; for this also is more or less sectarian: and besides, the course of instruction is very narrow, and is confined almost wholly to mere children. Nor can we rely on domestic education; for we know, and the Sunday school system is the highest proof, that the majority of parents are unwilling or incompetent. It would be as unwise to trust religious education to them, as to confide to them the general instruction of their children. Sunday schools may answer, with considerable alterations and improvements, for children; but can never be an adequate scheme of instruction from youth to manhood, whether we consider the very small portion of time employed in a whole week, the impossibility of having adequate teachers, in the higher departments, and the great number, who attend general, but not Sabbath Schools.* Independently, however, of these, the principal objection against sermons, catechetical instruction, domestic teaching, and Sunday schools, as

*Note E.

adequate substitutes for the proposed plan, arises from the unhappy influence, exerted by the present scheme of exclusion over the hearts and minds of youth. Let us examine this subject attentively.

Is it not obvious, that the absolute separation of secular and religious education must unavoidably make this impression, that they are essentially unconnected, and ought to be kept totally independent each of the other. But is this true? The first prepares a man only for the business of life; the second, both for the business and duties of life. Now, the business and duties of life are indissolubly bound together in the nature of man, by God himself. Yet man by his scheme of instruction, has actually put asunder what God had joined together. It is the same with the affections of the heart. God has ordained their exercise in every act of life, as inseparable from the very business of life. Yet, if we judge from his plan of education, Man has declared, that they have not a co-existence in real life; for he has banished the cultivation of the heart from schools of secular instruction. Languages, Grammar, Rhetoric, and the Philosophy of Mind, are taught alongside of Mathematical Science, though totally different in character. Yet, the religious cultivation of the mind and the heart is excluded from all share in a scheme, whose object is to fit the young for happiness, duty, and usefulness. Assuredly, it must be obvious, that Christian children will never learn their duties, as Christian men and Christian women, from geography and arithmetic, from grammatical or rhetorical works; nor will the affections be cultivated by studying the whole circle of Mathematics. And yet, there is rarely an instance, in the course of life, when we are called to the use of the various branches of knowledge, but that we ought to, and actually do exercise the sense of duty, if the conscience be enlightened, and our feelings, if the heart be well regulated.

My next objection to the present scheme is, that the separation of religious from secular education, gives to the former too much of a local, professional character. Religion seems as though it belonged only to the Clergy, and the Church, and the Sabbath. It acquires an air of constraint, a mannerism, unfriendly to its wholesome influence over the mind, the heart, the conscience, and over the whole life. Its vital, practical, personal operations are obscured and weakened; because it appears to be exclusively the business of one day and one place. Every other day and all other places, are dedicated, as far as respects education, to the concerns of