responsibilities which God has laid upon them? Or should it rather lead us to reconsider and retrace some of those over-zealous steps which have already tended to so much increased neglect of their own positive and bounden duties? Is it a valid reason for persisting to take the DIVINE prerogative still more and more into our own hands, or for attempting rather to recal the thoughts of all parties to a more just observance of what SUPREME WISDOM has ordained in this matter? It must be granted on all hands, that there is at the least a choice open between these two alternatives.

And broader light will be let in on this question as we advance further in Mr. Simpson's evidence. He would admit that, "dividing the revealed theology of Christianity into preceptive and doctrinal," the preceptive might, under a certain condition, (i. e., "as being identified with natural morality,) be held to form an inherent part of secular education; but because it is revealed religion, it is better separated from secular education.* Doctrinal Christianity is, beyond all doubt, a distinct and separate branch of knowledge, as much as geometry or chemistry."+ Being asked presently," Would you prohibit the teacher from any reference, in the course of his lessons, to Christian doctrines, or Christian history, as such?" He answers, "It would be better so to do." Again, "Would you use THE BIBLE at all in secular education?” "CERTAINLY NOT." It would be tedious to adduce more instances, and uncandid not to mention that these extravagant PRINCIPIA are qualified by a verbose profusion of distinctions between secular education and religious. But, looking to the lower classes, for whom alone gratuitous education is required, and for none else than whom the levying of school-rates would be endurable or (as I hope) endured in this country, what idle mockery is all this verbiage! In truth, Mr. Simpson himself incidentally admits as much, though doubtless without being aware of it, in his two next succeeding answers. "There must," (he says,) "be two teachers-the secular and the religious." "Can you give any instances, of your own knowledge, or can you quote any other authorities, for dividing secular and religious education in the manner you have recommended ?" "In Scotland, during the period of my own elementary education, the separation was,

Catching at words is an unprofitable and unwise work; but may it not be asked, without fear of committing such mistake, whether there need be a more complete instance than is here of a person's "understanding neither what he says, nor whereof he affirms?" A privilege is granted to "revealed theology" upon the ground of its being (in part)" identified with natural morality!" This can hardly pass.

And evidently, in Mr. Simpson's estimation, of no more consequence or worth than either-if so much.

Let opportunity be taken to observe here, that no account is had, or intended to be had, in this letter of any other education than that of the lower classes. Unless by exercise of sheer tyranny, the state (of Great Britain) has not the smallest right to meddle with the teaching of children whose parents can afford to pay for their instruction. And none but brawling advocates for "unrestricted liberty of conscience" would have conceived such an attempt. Affording mere facilities to a sound plan of national education is quite another matter. The greatest confusion is created throughout the wilderness (and a barren and dry wilderness it is!) of the House of Commons' Reports, by the perpetual jumbling together of all sorts and sizes of education.

in all schools but the parochial, and those for the lower orders in towns, complete. The education at school was secular, and at home religious." In all schools BUT the parochial, and those for the lower orders; i. e., in all BUT those with which alone there is any call on Christian beneficence to interfere! This is a TANTUM NON indeed! And, by the way, there is another pregnant admission (as the phrase is) in this last answer. Mothers, (it would appear from it) in the deponent's elementary days were much more competent than they are now to finish the education of their children at home: if not, how will the witness reconcile this incidental confession with his preceding estimate of modern motherly competency? This speaks but awkwardly for the effects of the pretended march of mind and knowledge! Let it be weighed.

But it is not my wish to run astray on side issues. The question of importance is, as to the ANTI-SCRIPTURAL character of the new theories.. By which expression, "anti-scriptural," I do not mean to refer so much, or so exclusively as many seem to do, to the mere circumstance of using the Bible as a school-book, but rather to a meaning of the word, which seems to me of higher consequence-namely, the harmony or disagreement of the projected schemes with the views taken and inculcated—and seemingly alone taken and inculcated-concerning education in the BOOK Of life. Mr. Simpson avowedly prefers public education, in the infant stages, to maternal. There can be no mistaking that opinion of his. Again, he is not less avowedly against the interfusion of religion (I mean throughout, at every stage, and as a thing of course,) into the whole body of instruction. With him, religion is not to be held the vital principle, or spirit that should animate the whole mass; but something separate, or super-added. Not only is it not with him a SINE QUA NON, but an exclusion of the Bible from the secular school is his indispensible condition. For to the question, "Do you think the arrangement you have proposed upon this subject is, sine qua non to a general system of national education?" he answers, unreservedly, "I should say, that without it we shall never carry into effect a system of national education; I conceive it a SINE QUA NON." The question now is narrowed into a manageable compass. Is it allowable for us, the ministers of the established church, to listen to such schemes only for experiment?*

My own opinion is distinctly in the negative. Probably Mr. Simpson would charge me with "the hurtful error of holding that the Bible is given to teach all knowledge, scientific included," (the science of education, of course, among the rest,)" and that nothing can be true which is not to be found there." If so, my only remedy is to be content, although I entertain no such opinion. I do plead guilty, however, to the reproach of being one who would desire to "mix revealed

I cannot refrain from adding, in a note, one other answer of Mr. Simpson, as indicative of the state of his ideas. It immediately precedes this declaration of his sine qua non. He is asked, "Which has the most influence upon conduct-doctrine or precept?" and answers, readily, " The precept, CERTAINLY; yet we miss the precepts of Christianity in the various creeds." In the phraseology of the courts of justice, surely "this witness may go down!"

religion (meaning its true life and spirit) with everything." It is, however, one thing to look for systems or exact patterns in the Bible, and another to refer to it for all PRINCIPLES; and it appears to me our bounden duty to derive our principles of Christian education from the Bible, and from no other source. *

Now, is it possible for any honest and unprejudiced mind, deriving its impressions on this head from the revealed will of GoD, to doubt that both of the foregoing philosophic tenets are quite at variance with those of scripture?

As to the first, I do not scruple to avow a persuasion, that, looking to the wonderful and quite peculiar power of scripture in conveying principles, the single case of Timothy, even if it stood alone, might well be held decisive on this point. His education had been palpably maternal; and what is an apostle's estimate of it? Not that the instance does stand alone-very far indeed from it; but it is here adduced for brevity's sake, as being a most marked and ready one.

As to the second tenet of this Scotch philosophy-let it be asked again, what only can we judge to be regarded as the principal thing in the instruction of all youthful minds according to the scripture-the lifeblood (so to speak) of education-throughout their bringing up from first to last? Is it not wisdom and the fear of THE LORD,-religion, aye, and doctrinal religion? Can we suppose (e. g.) that there is no doctrinal foundation laid, or intended to be laid, in such a charge as this "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our GOD is one Lord; and thou shalt love THE LORD THY GOD with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up"? Let me repeat, I do not instance these words as setting forth a plan of education, as laying down the science of instruction, or any thing of that sort, but only as affording us a principle on which to lay the grand foundation, and by the light of which to fix the bias of all instruction of any people called, in whatsoever age, to knowledge of the true GOD.

To make the proposition somewhat plainer by an example-is it supposable that any other than this was the sure basis and pervading tutelary principle of all the education of that Daniel whose name was Belteshazzar, and of his three companions-" children skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace"? If any inference be either here or elsewhere fairly deducible from simple narrative, the after history of all the four settles the question. [And, by the way, there is a special passage of a comparative nature well worthy to be noticed here,-viz., that "in all matters of wisdom and understanding that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm."

This is the proposition of Mr. Dale's powerful sermon. "The PRINCIPLES of the Bible afford the only safe and solid groundwork of national education." And a most sound proposition it is.

Suppose, in order to accommodate the lesson hence to be inferred to the changed usages of these days, we were to look upon these wise "magicians and astrologers" as answering, in some degree, to men of science and philosophers, how would the general question now before us stand, under the light of that illustration? But to return to the main argument.] Enough, I think, has been proposed to shew that there is absolute, irreconcilable opposition of principles between the scriptural and theoretical views of education, (so to distinguish them.) What ought to follow from that circumstance alone? Is the case one that may admit of compromise? I will not reason on the sheer waste and hopeless vanity of entertaining and discussing speculative problems, where it is antecedently impossible that parties can agree. And yet there are admonitory signs from which it is to be perceived that such vain skirmishings are no light evil! Witness the mischievous effect of rash concessions, sure to be drawn in course of argument from these who enter unadvisedly (no matter under what pretence) into unprofitable strifes, which, from their very nature, cannot be ended. How frequently is courage given to the adversary, if not actual strength, by thus acknowledging the possible soundness of his principles! Yet, being thoroughly convinced ourselves of the divine authority of scripture, do we intend to make, even hypothetically, any such acknowledgment? By virtually making it, then, against our own sincere convictions, how much may we be every now and then beguiled to cut off unawares from our own future powers of resistance, or how much may we intercept our own facilities of retreat from rash advances, by too impetuously venturing (as it were) into the enemy's country!

Let me illustrate this position, which seems exceedingly important. -Why should teachers of religion go such lengths on this point, as too many have done, in popular admissions even from the pulpit? Why, I mean, should they pay elaborate compliments to the studies recommended by the theorists? Why state that any process of improvement will raise men in the scale of being, and exalt them above sensual and profligate habits; and that it is, therefore, obviously more desirable for the poor, even if without religion, to pursue philosophy, than to be spending their time in idleness and drunkenness? Of course, it is much more desirable in itself. There can be no doubt of that. But where is the necessity for putting forth such propositions, with reference to the poor, or for entering into such comparisons, or (what is infinitely worse) of tacitly admitting the unavoidableness of such alternatives? How is the subtle sophist to be met when he exclaims, exultingly, on this-"Oh, then, you grant that if the poor man has not some resources such as we contend for, he will be surely occupied with worse"? I mean to speak respectfully to the clergy, but I contend that we are not excusable as Christian ministers in granting any such thing; nor should we grant it, even inadvertently. No harm, of course, is meant by such too-easy tone of liberality; it would, no doubt, be the last thing in the preachers' wish, to give advantage to a false philosophy, or to disparage gospel truth. Yet such must often be the effect produced, and that on many minds. Such sources of amusement are not available, and never can be made so, to the great

body of the poorer classes. And even where they can be partially provided, this sort of argument is very fatal to men's contented love of HOME. It seems to grant to them a certain right to be amused publicly out of their working hours. Can this be otherwise than prejudicial in its consequences? Does it not more or less dishonour the unfailing treasure of the Divine word read in private, and almost the sufficiency of the Divine grace, thus to suppose, or to lead others to suppose, that God has not supplied the poor with adequate means of daily contentment, or of a reasonable happiness, in the discharge of social and domestic duties after a day of toil?

How much more guarded and more sound, a spirit of true philosophy is traceable in words like these?" The employments, devised by man for the advancement of the intellect, say what we will, can belong, comparatively speaking, only to the few; while the Divine Author of our being and Creator of our souls (in the exercise of that sublime wisdom which overwhelms us, as much by its simplicity as its depths, wherever we can catch a glimpse of it,) devises, (i. e., through the doctrine that man is an eternal being,) in the dull realities of the basest employments, and all the dreary heartless intercourse of daily life,' a scheme for elevating and purifying the soul— a scheme, therefore, which applies itself to all his creatures, from the king on his throne to Lazarus at the gate. This is not to be set forth as a system, but it is simply set before us as a matter of ordinary duty. But, compared with this, even so set before us, what can earth offer to stimulate, to elevate, to purify ?"

And what is it which makes the difference, in solid truth and force, between these views? Simply that they who hold the one take tenable ground, and they who hold the other untenable. The first, deferring too indulgently to the caprices of the day, fight with an unproved weapon; the second take theirs only from the Christian armoury. The one take footing on the sand of man's intellectual nature; the other, on the rock of moral and spiritual capacity; and surely the result, in either case, will be pronounced, by all courageous believers, to be just such as was in reason to be looked for.

However, not to rest so great a question on the mere vanity and waste of all such bootless condescensions to an impracticable adversary, let it be now asked, earnestly-whether there be not a commanding voice of positive duty, which should at once determine the great body of the clergy (and, in proportionate degree, of all who hold sincerely with the church, but, at all events, THE CLERGY,) as to the line to be uncompromisingly taken in this matter, and that without more hesitation or delay? If it be undeniable, that-let the theorists cover their pretences with what vast heap of smooth, but dreamy, words they will their scheme is, in its nature, ANTI-SCRIPTURAL, is there, in duty, any choice permitted to the clergy, but to take part at once with SCRIPTURE? Let it not be for ever urged, that things have gone too far to make it prudent or expedient to retract from this or that concession. The very fact itself, (if fact it be,) that we have gone too far contains within it an unanswerable reason for acknowleding the error, VOL. XIII.-April, 1838. 3 M