the world, if not altogether, at least, to a vast extent. In such a state of things, it is not possible for religion to pervade naturally and harmoniously, the whole structure of character. It cannot be realized to be the business of every day, and an essential element in every transaction of life.

It appears to me also, that this separation promotes religious party spirit, strengthens sectarian prejudices, and leaves insensibly on the young mind, the impression, that there is no common ground between different sects. It is hardly possible to avoid this consequence; for children grow up with the idea, not so much, that they are all Christian children, as that they belong to a particular sect. But let the Bible be a part of the education common to all, and christian fellowship, with its harmonizing influences, would be an early, an all-pervading element in youthful character. Hence, reciprocal love and forbearance, liberal sentiments, and mutual respect and esteem, would be interwoven with all the studies of youth, and they would learn insensibly, but indelibly, experimentally, though not theoretically, that Christianity is above all sects, and the Bible above all creeds and confessions; that Religion is pure and elevated, simple, beautiful and affecting, and common to all.

I gather a farther illustration of the defectiveness of the present scheme from the circumstance, that religion is so rarely the subject of conversation. Unquestionably, this arises, in a good measure, from the fact, that most persons are not religious. But is not this very state of things the consequence, in part, of the unnatural separation, above referred to? If you discard religion altogether from the business education of life, and confine it to the Church and the Sabbath, do you not effectually prevent it from becoming an element of conversation, except in formal, religious intercourse? But if religion be, as it certainly is, the chief constituent of all usefulness and happiness, if the Bible abound, and no one denies it, with the most important facts, the most interesting narrative, the noblest, purest sentiments, and the best examples, how can we doubt, that religion ought to enter largely into all the conversational intercourse of life? That it never will, under the present system, theory demonstrates and experience testifies. That it would do so, as a natural consequence of the daily association of religious and secular instruction, is manifest.

There is, it appears to me, in the present systems of education, a radical and serious deficiency, which the introduc

tion of the Bible would supply. I allude to the fact, that youth are not taught, daily and habitually that education is a duty. To instruct them in DUTY, being no part of the present scheme, until you come to such a work, as Paley's Moral Philosophy, the Teacher only adverts occasionally to the topic of their duty to study, with a view to their future virtue and usefulness. Emulation and ambition, too often the source of evil to the moral temperament and social feelings of youth, when not regulated and subservient to the sense of duty, are too much felt by them, and too much relied upon by Teachers. But if the Bible were the ground work of education, and the companion of youth, from the primary school to the university, all education would be interwoven with the scheme of duty, for that would be dependent upon and auxiliary to this. The youth would not then be urged to study merely for the honor of his teacher, or through gratitude to his parents, or for the sake of his country, or on account of the pleasures of knowledge. The higher motives and sanctions of religion would be taught as the basis of his obligation to study. His duty to God would appear as the only fountain of all others: and from the beginning he would learn, that he was bound to study; because his duty to God, required it of him. All other considerations would gather their strength from this: and all other duties would derive their power to bind the conscience, from the paramount authority of this great law of obedience. Can any christian undervalue the deep and lasting advantages, that would accrue to youth, from this change in the principal motive and prevailing spirit of study?

The negative influences exerted by the present scheme, on the feelings and opinions, and through them, on the entire character of youth, are deserving of notice. Nor must we despise them, for they are often more powerful and durable, because they are silent, secret and indirect. If Teachers were to proclaim publicly and boldly to their pupils, that Religion was of little consequence, and had nothing to do with their preparation for the business of life, we should be exceedingly shocked. If the Instructor were to express an opinion, in like manner, to the young, that Heathen Mythology is a preferable study to the Bible, we could not restrain our indignation and astonishment.-How exceedingly moreover would that indignation and astonishment be enhanced, if we were to hear such a sentiment from the ministers of the holy, humble, perfect Jesus, in favor of a sys

tem immoral, and licentious, and indecent, as the Pantheon of Paganism! And yet we tolerate practically very nearly the same thing. What other construction but this, can the young put upon the whole plan of their education? Are they told that the Bible is the Book of God, written by the inspired pen of the Prophet and the Apostle? Yet this divine volume, is wholly abandoned for human works, unconnected with it. Are they taught, that there is no God, but the God of the Scriptures, that He is their Creator and Governor, and is to be their Judge, and the Dispenser of future rewards and punishments? Yet the attributes of Jehovah, as drawn by himself, are no part of their daily studies; while the character and actions of Jupiter and Neptune, of Mars and Apollo, of Juno, Minerva and Venus, are continually before them. In a word, they are expected to be more familiar with the Pantheon of Heathenism, than with the Word of God. Are they told that the character of the Savior, is of more value, as a noble, pure, simple model, than all the combined excellence of Grecian and Roman Antiquity? Yet the sentiments and actions of that Redeemer form no part of their daily education; but they are required to be intimately acquainted with those of the Gods and Goddesses, Demigods and heroes of Paganism.* Are they told that the New Testament is incomparably superior to all the philosophy which man has to offer that in the language of the dying Rochester, "this, this is the true philosophy." Yet, this very book is banished from their course of studies; while they are led to the formation of their character from a heathen work, the Offices of Cicero. They are told as it were, in the very language of Sir Wm. Jones, that "the Scriptures contain independently of a divine origin, more true sublimity, more exquisite beauty, purer morality, more important history, and finer strains both of poetry and eloquence, than could be collected within the same compass, from all other books, that were ever composed, in any age, or in any idi-' om." And yet this book, "rich in a more precious treasure, eloquent in a more sublime language, noble by the right of a miraculous creation, and consecrated by the imposition of a mightier hand," is banished from the whole system of education; while the history, poetry, philosophy, and eloquence of pagan Greece and Rome occupy the largest por

* Note F.

tion of their time. They are told, that the heavens declare the glory of God, that the firmament showeth his handy work, that, in the universe, they ought to study his existence and attributes, and yet the Bible, the noblest work of his Creation, of his Providence, and of his Grace, is no part of their education. Perhaps they are required to study the evidences of revealed religion. Yet the Scriptures themselves are never opened: and those infallible, surprising testimonies to the divinity of the Old and New Testament, which constitute the living witness within them, and can be discovered only in themselves, are sealed up from their view. Is it possible that such things have no influence on the minds and hearts of youth? Can they respect the Bible, and its religion, and its Ministers, and the services of the House of God, as they ought, when such contradictions are ever before their eyes? What relish can educated men have for the simplicity and purity, humility and hotness of the New Testament, when their youth has been spent in the study and admiration of heathen morals and mythology, of heathen poetry, and eloquence? Can they know, and love, and serve God, as they ought; can they acquire the Christian temper and character; can they rightly estimate their duties to their fellow men, as Children of a common Parent and brethren of one family, when the only standard of duty, and usefulness, and happiness is thus carefully excluded throughout the whole course of their education?

Let us illustrate these views by the case of a clergyman, who is an instructor of youth. When he extols the New Testament, as the supreme code of Morals, and yet teaches morality to christian youths from the Offices of Cicero; when he places the writings of Solomon above all mortal compositions, for the knowledge of human nature, and for admirable sentiments, and yet selects instead of them, Horace, Juvenal and Persius as his Text Books; when he speaks of the historical portions of Scripture, as the most authentic and valuable of their kind, and yet compels his scholars to study only the Grecian and Roman Historians; when he acknowledges that the Gospels are the most dignified, pure and interesting of all Biographies, and yet confines his pupils to Nepos and Plutarch and Tacitus; when he ranks Moses and Job, David and Isaiah, far above the poetry of man, and yet excludes them for Homer, and Virgil, and Ovid; how is it possible that such things should not have a sensible effect on the young? When they find a Clergy

man taking his text from the Bible on Sunday, yet adopting Pagan Books for their instruction during the week; when they hear him on the Sabbath, describing the religion of heathenism as idolatrous and corrupt, as full of abominations and impurities, as fitted only to darken the understanding, brutalize the passions, harden the heart, and deprave the moral taste,* and yet find that during the rest of the week he is zealously employed in familiarizing them with the mythology of Greece and Rome, and with the sentiments and actions of Greeks and Romans, formed upon that standard; how can they resist the impression, practically, yet deeply, though silently made, that in point of fact, he considers the writings of antiquity, as superior to those of Prophets and Apostles,.in preparing youth for the business, the duties, and the happiness of life?

Christianity, it must be admitted, is altogether superior to heathenism, whether we regard the natural or the moral world; the individual, or society, or government. Christianity affects the understanding and imagination, the conscience and heart, incomparably more than classic mythology. Its materials are altogether more beautiful, noble and various. Yet we are told, implicitly, though not expressly, that the mythology of Greece and Rome is of more consequence in education, than Christianity. Accordingly, the former finds a liberal share of attention from beginning to end, the latter scarcely any place at all. What Master's table in the school room, is without the Pantheon and the Classical Dictionary; but who has ever seen there the Scriptures, or a Concordance, or a Dictionary of the Bible? To hold that christianity cannot and will not produce a far greater and better effect on the mind, heart and character, than all the works of classic antiquity, would be as inconsistent, as to believe that man, as affected by our Republican Government, so simple and practical, so natural and equitable, so peaceful and sober, is far inferior to man, such as he appeared in the turbulent, oppressive and military Aristocracies and Democracies of Greece and Rome. Now the important question is not whether the Bible is better fitted than the Heathen Classics to make Poets and Orators (and yet I doubt not even this ;) but whether the latter can bear any comparison with the former, in moulding public men, by elevating, expanding and refining their minds, and in

*See Note G.