mind without the other. I infer, therefore, that its rejection or exclusion from the "Practical Observations," was the result of positive intention. It is impossible to suppose that any person who felt the least respect for Christianity, sitting down seriously to compose a treatise on popular education, and urging it purely, as he has done, on the principle of "raising the character;" should never once have alluded to the first morality the world were ever taught—the morality of the gospel. And yet, as if his exclusive respect for a mere system of morals were not sufficiently emphatic and distinct to answer his purpose, he, in another place, adds, "one can hardly conceive a greater benefit than those would confer who should make a judicious selection from our best authors upon ethics."

On all other topics but our religion, there is no lack of every due attention. Mr. B. insists at large on the benefit of cheapening works on party politics, with the view of qualifying the mob to discuss the affairs of the nation; and though hardly two of their betters can agree on

political economy, recommends its study as a prime object of their pursuit. It is true, he may choose to consider that every working man is sufficiently informed on religious subjects before he reaches the age of an adult. But is this the fact? How does Mr. Brougham find it in respect to himself? He may argue, that while the churches are open, any mention of the matter would be superfluous. But are the churches attended? It may be said, that if the Scriptures were made a part of popular discussion, it would lead to acrimonious differences. Books on theology Mr. Brougham expressly excludes, "on account of the various sects men belong to." But are there not sects in politics; and are the opinions of these sectaries less liable to run into acrimony? it necessary in either case to assume that men must carry on hostile discussions? But why make discussion any part of the system of popular education at all? May not a man learn his religion, and even his political economy, without making them the subjects of a debating club? Mr. Brougham warns his operatives, it

Is

is true, against getting too much into debate ; and, to avoid an explosion, recommends, with great nicety of calculation, the assemblage of debaters not to exceed twenty; this number he thinks being safer than thirty, (vide "Practical Observations.") Upon the whole, whoever weighs these indications maturely, cannot fail, I think, to conclude that Mr. Brougham sets no value on Christianity whatever; nay, that he is positively unfriendly to it: and if so, will it be very uncharitable to question whether he is exactly the fittest of all persons to have either influence or direction over our national education. Let him hold Christianity in what contempt he may, does he, as a moralist or legislator, pretend to say that there is any code of ethics under heaven equal to the Christian, for securing public and private virtue? or any other bond of union in any rank of mankind, so strong as the principles it inculcates? Seeing what philosophy has been able to achieve for the most illustrious nations of antiquity, it surely is not to her he wishes the world again to look for a substitute. But

+

it is alleged, that although our faith is not especially insisted upon as making a part of the new scheme of popular instruction; yet as men's minds get to be more enlightened, it may be expected to follow in its train; or if not exactly the Christian faith, something equally as good, to the authority of which the conscience of every illuminated man will be equally amenable. Now, as to building our immortal hopes securely on a foundation of philosophy, the Scriptures are so expressly, positively, and diametrically opposed to any such vain imagination, that I must infer the stickler for such a doctrine either disbelieves them in toto, or that he is wholly ignorant of their contents; there being hardly any delusion about which they take more pains to undeceive us, than a proud confidence in the powers of unassisted reason for revealing the inscrutable things of eternity. “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Speaking of the philosophy of the people in France, the same authority I have already

quoted, admits, "That although knowledge is diffused very generally through the lowest orders both in the army and civil life, and through the extensive class next above them, such as shopkeepers, employés dans les bureaux, &c., perhaps more generally than in the corresponding classes of any other nation, yet is there much less of what is called religion; in fact, no religion at all, excepting such as every man chooses to construct for his own private use."

If Mr. Brougham withdraws the authority of revelation, what security is there given for sound principle, and fair dealing, and the kindly affections, while it is left for philosophy to supply each individual with the matter of his creed, and peculiar construction of a good or bad action? How abominably horrible to contemplate being left to the mercy of a man's philosophy, as the only check upon his passions; who may as well take it into his head to think cutting my throat as sound a piece of ethics as cutting his own. Instead of a morality in which all are agreed, we should have a system squared to every man's taste: some