-

American. It is not between us and other nations that we have been instituting a comparison. We have compared our nation not with others; but have sought to measure it by the standard of greatness furnished us in our holy religion, the only standard by which it becomes us to try ourselves. Tried by that standard, we are indeed most shamefully wanting, and should blush and hang our heads.

In saying this, we do not feel that we forfeit the character of a true patriot. We may be wrong, but we have always held that the worst citizen of a republic is he who flatters the people, assures them they are wise and virtuous, can do no wrong, and have the right, irrespective of the laws of God, to do whatever they will. We have never believed that we must consult the will of the people as the rule of our faith or of our practice. We have believed it the duty of every citizen to do all in his power not to conform to public opinion, but to set it right whenever he has good authority for believing it wrong. We are not to do what will please the people, but to do what we can to influence the people to will what is pleasing to God. Such has been our belief ever since we commenced addressing the public in speech or in writing, and such is our belief now, and probably will be as long as we live. It is too late for us now to turn courtier or demagogue. If this is a fault in us, there is no lack of aspirants to public favor to atone for it. We love our country. We are resolved to do all we can to sustain her institutions; but we are not of those who have great facility in shouting Democracy, and praising the dear people. We see evil tendencies at work; we see the golden, or rather paper, age of demagogues advancing, and we tremble for our country. To us, the direction things are taking seems likely to prove disastrous. We raise our voice, feeble though it be, and unheeded as we fear it will be, to contribute our mite to stay the advancing tide of ruin. We have raised it with a patriot's love, and with a patriot's grief; but with the Christian's hope. Bad as appearances are, a good God as well as a just God watches over us, and we dare not distrust his mercy. It may be he will have mercy on our nation; that he will yet make ours the chosen land of his abode; that he will in very deed be our God, and we shall be his people. We would not see our experiment in behalf of popular freedom fail; we would see it succeed. It will not fail, it will succeed, if we return to God, put our trust in him, and live for the end to which he has appointed us.

A Sermon

ART III. Dangers of Jesuit Instruction. preached at the Second Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, September 25, 1845. By Rev. Wм. S. POTтs, D. D. 8vo. pp. 21.

THE author of this sermon, we presume, from its doctrine and tone, is a Presbyterian minister, and most likely pastor of the church at which it was preached. We know nothing of him except what the sermon itself tells us. From that we

gather that he stands high in his own estimation, has some earnestness and zeal, but is rather deficient in theological and historical knowledge, as well as in the meekness and sweetness of the Christian temper.

The sermon is from Eph. vi. 4,-"Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," or, as the Catholic version has it," in the discipline and correction of the Lord"; and is designed to set forth the solemn obligations of Christian parents to give their children a truly Christian education, and to point out one remarkable instance in which they violate these obligations.

"The text," he says, " is an apostolic precept given to those who hold in the Church of Christ the important and responsible relation of parents. The Church, consequently, requires, in every case in which the Sacrament of Baptism is administered to a child, that the parents bring themselves under a solemn obligation to endeavour, by all the means of God's appointment, to bring up their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.'

"As in the administration of this Sacrament in the case of an adult, he gives himself up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life; so parents, in presenting their children, make a formal surrender of them to God, and obligate themselves, as guardians and instructers appointed for the express purpose, to bring them up as God's sons and daughters. For their diligence and faithfulness in the discharge of this duty every parent is to answer, first, to the Church officers, whose duty it is to see to the fulfilment of the vows publicly made in the Church, and secondly, to the great Judge of quick and dead. Hence arises the double duty, that officers should see to it that the Church is fully instructed in reference to the nature of this covenant engagement, and that parents carefully consider the meaning of the vow that rests upon them." p. 3.

The inquiry might arise here, Who are these "Church offi

cers"? and, especially, who is to see to it that they rightly instruct, or do not misinstruct, the Church? The Church officers instruct the Church; but who instructs and appoints the Church officers? The earth stands on the turtle; but what does the turtle stand on? If the sermon reaches a second edition, we hope the author will condescend to enlighten us on this point.

The explanation of the precept of the text, though it overlooks the immediate sense intended by the blessed Apostle, is well enough. The general duty of Christian parents to educate their children in a Christian manner is set forth with tolerable clearness. It is a solemn duty, and one which it is to be deeply lamented parents too often and too fatally neglect. The parent who brings his child to the Sacrament of Baptism incurs a solemn obligation to do all in his power to bring him up in a truly Christian manner; and if he do not, and the child through that neglect be lost, terrible will be the account he will one day be called upon to settle with his Maker and his Judge. But the main design, and much the larger part, of this sermon is devoted to pointing out one of the instances in which parents violate this command."

"The case," the author says, " to which I allude, is the indifference manifested by Christian parents to the characters, morals, and religious sentiments of the instructers of their children. Many parents act upon the principle, that it is of no importance what may be the morals or sentiments entertained by a teacher, provided there is no immorality exhibited before the pupils, and no attempt to inculcate sentiments deemed erroneous. But no opinion could be more untrue, or more practically dangerous. The Scripture declaration, as a man thinketh in his heart so is he,' will be found true. His teachings and example will be insensibly influenced by the doctrines he holds, and there will occur a thousand ways in which the pupil will distinctly comprehend the views and feelings of the preceptor; and these views will not have the less influence, from the fact that he makes no direct effort to impress them upon the pupil's mind. A direct effort of this kind would put the learner on his guard; but the other plan allays all fear, and the poison silently and imperceptibly works. The child is subjected five sevenths of his time to this influence, and the remaining portion to a different influence; no wonder, then, that the poison has gained so fast, that errors are fixed beyond remedy in the mind before the parent is aware that they exist at all. Hence, every one soliciting at your hands the post of instructer of your children should be willing to submit his opinions and life to the most rigid scrutiny,

before he asks that so important a trust should be confided to him.” pp. 6, 7.

The principle laid down here we regard as a sound one. We should find it extremely difficult to bring ourselves to intrust the education of our children to instructers we held to be unsound in the faith. There is no torture we would not endure sooner than trust them to the care of Presbyterian teachers, even in matters but remotely connected with faith and morals. We agree entirely with Dr. Potts in the principle he lays down, and are quite certain, that, if the Americans generally would adopt it, and act upon it, there would soon be an end of that monopoly of education throughout the United States, which has hitherto been enjoyed by Presbyterians and the Calvinistic Congregationalists. The great majority of the American people are anti-Calvinistic, and if they were not shamefully indifferent to the doctrines entertained by those they employ as instructers, we should not see, as is even yet the fact, the greater part of our colleges, academies, and literary institutions. under Calvinistic control.

But, if we agree with Dr. Potts in the principle he lays down, we are far from agreeing with him in the application he makes of it. From the fact, that parents are bound to bring up their children in the discipline and correction of the Lord, he infers that they are bound not to intrust them to Catholic instructers. But this is a plain non sequitur; for none but Catholic instructers do, or can, impart a truly Christian education. He would also infer from the same premises that Christian parents can in conscience employ none but Presbyterian educators; which is another non sequitur. Educators cannot impart what they have not; and Presbyterians must be Christians, before they can give a Christian education. That they are not Christians now, we have the right to say; since, in a recent act of their general assembly, asserting the invalidity of Catholic baptism, they have unchristened themselves. Men are made Christians in the Sacrament of Baptism. The Presbyterians have no baptism but that which they derived from the Catholic Church, and their title to the Christian name rests on the validity of that baptism. They have declared that baptism invalid. Consequently, according to their own declaration, they have always been, and are, a set of unbaptized - Presbyterians, and therefore completely out of the pale of Christendom. Evidently, then, if Christian parents are bound to give their children a Christian education, they must not employ Presbyterian instructers.

Dr. Potts asserts that Catholic individuals and ecclesiastical orders are at the doors of Protestants, "asking Christian parents to commit their children to their hands to be educated, and, of course, for this is the parent's vow, to be trained up for God."- p. 7. This, if so, is no doubt horrible, and not to be tolerated; for we suppose Protestants are not at liberty to refuse the request. But we are inclined to think he labors under a slight mistake. We are sure that Catholics do not solicit Protestants to intrust them with the education of their children. We establish schools for our own children, that we may discharge the duty the preacher is laboring to enforce; and it can be no sin in us to request Catholic parents to send their children to Catholic schools. We do not request Protestants to send their children to our schools; we are not particularly desirous of receiving them, and some of our colleges will not receive them at all. It is a favor we confer on Protestants, when we admit their sons and daughters into our schools, for which they should thank us, both for their own sake and their children's sake, not abuse us.

We think also the preacher is ungenerous in objecting to our schools because they furnish education at "reduced prices." This objection comes with an ill grace from the party that claims to be the especial friends of education, and the founders of free schools. That our schools give a better education and at less expense than Protestant schools we do not question; for our instructers are for the most part vowed to poverty, and devoted to the work of education not for the love of money, but for the love of God. Education is with them a religious vocation. They are men and women dead to the world, and alive only to God, and no doubt they have special graces from Almighty God for the work to which he calls them. They are thus enabled to educate better than Protestants can, whatever their zeal, diligence, learning, or natural ability; and, as they have no expensive families or position to maintain, they can educate much cheaper than Protestants can. This sufficiently accounts for the excellence and cheapness of our schools, and for their ability to compete more than successfully, wherever established, with Protestant schools. But this surely implies no fault on our part, and can be no ground for condemning us or our schools.

But the reduced prices at which our schools furnish education is not the only objection the preacher brings against them. He thinks the Christian parent cannot send his children to our