principles, which future care may cherish into life; and nothing exasperates it so much as to be baffled in these attempts.

"Now there is no better or surer preventive of the many evils which flow from the prevalence of this vile and odious spirit than to give to morality and religion their proper place in a system of liberal public instruction. If you would exclude little ideas from the mind, fill it with great ones. If you would furnish your sons with proper conceptions of the character of God, give them the capacity to view his works. If you would teach them what true religion is, send them direct to the Bible, qualified and prepared to hold over its sacred pages the lights of literature and science. If you would not have them dogmatical and obstinate in their opinions, let them know how others have thought and reasoned. In short, if you would have them preserved from every illiberal bias, and made gentlemen, Christians, and valuable members of society, store their minds with useful knowledge; let them become conversant, as far as practicable, with the whole round of science. Then will they see how confined are the bounds of human knowledge, compared with the infinitude of things which lie beyond, and be modest; then will they contemplate the stupendous grandeur of that almighty ONE, who made all things and with whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and be humble; and then will they learn the weakness of human nature, and be more ready to make allowances than to censure and condemn.

"The opinion seems to be entertained by some, that because there are so many different notions on the subject of religion, and because there is found so much of bigotry and illnature connected with these notions in the practice of those who entertain them, the safest way would be to banish all religion entirely from our schools and seminaries of learning. But would this be practicable? Would it be desirable? Sectarianism!' cries one; our youth will be corrupted by sectarianism!' But who are you that give the alarm? Have you no religious opinions? Yes; but ours are right and all others wrong. Modest enough. But others will say the same in turn; and there is no infallible pope to decide between you. Let us have no opinions on religion, then,' exclaims another. And who shall be the teachers, and what books shall be read? 'Such as are in favour of no opinions.' Then they must be blank books, and blank teachers. 'Be it so. Let atheists be our professors.' What! an atheist teach

astronomy? or chemistry? or mental philosophy? The stars in their course would fight against him; the gases would prove him mad; the economy of the human faculties would convict him an idiot. The thing is impossible. All men, consequently all teachers, have their opinions on religion. And something on the subject, directly or indirectly, will be taught. But if it were practicable, would it be desirable for young men to be educated without religion? Shall no prayers be offered in their hearing to the Father of Lights? Shall the Saviour of the world receive no homage from the young? His heavenly doctrine no commendation from their instructers? Shall we quote Socrates, and not Paul? Demosthenes, and not Isaiah? Pindar, and not David? Seneca, and not Jesus? The public may say so, if it please them; but when they do, the day and date of the prohibition will be the day and date of the country's doom. Is there no middle course? Certainly there is. Let our youth be taught to fear God and keep his commandments; but let their teachers be enlightened, liberal-minded men, men of science, and they will find employment

enough for themselves and their pupils on congenial subjects, and be under no temptation to lead them into the dark and thorny wilderness of mystical theology.

"When many foolish and disgusting practices become connected with the outward forms of religion, or when many trivial and doubtful tenets are magnified into articles of faith, there will be, of course, abundant matter for disputation; and one of the worst consequences attending such a state of things is, that, while the unreflecting many attach great importance to trifles, others will be tempted to discard the whole. For when truth and error, things grave and things ludicrous, are blended together, it is easier at once to throw all overboard than to separate the one from the other. This, then, if I mistake not, is the danger of the times. Thus, because some observe one day sacred, and some another, others are for having no Sabbath; because some are bigoted, others will be skeptical; because it cannot be agreed among the different sects whose creed is the best, others are for discarding all creeds; and in the matter of education, because all cannot perfectly coïncide on all points of religious doctrine, it is thought best by many that there should be no points. I will quarrel with no man about his religious belief; yet I very much question the prudence and policy as well as the propriety of such a course. One man prefers beef, another pork; one cabbage, another potatoes. Shall I, therefore, eat nothing? Of the different roads leading to a given point, it is disputed which is best. Shall I, therefore, take neither? One of my neighbours lives in a brick house; another prefers a frame. Shall I, therefore, live out of doors? Shall I advocate anarchy, till politicians have determined what sort of government is to be preferred? In all these cases men uniformly decide that something is better than nothing. And in religion, it is surely better to have some error than no truth. Only let us be careful not to impose our views of truth upon others. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; but let him not cherish such prejudices against those who differ from him as preclude the exercise of charity, and lead to the calling of hard names, misrepresentations, and every species of unreasonable opposition. No man who gives himself up to such a spirit can be a real Christian, however confident he may be in his pretensions and the soundness of his experience. And were the alternative proposed to my choice, whether to stand at the final and decisive judgment which awaits us all, in the condition of such a Christian, or in that of the moderate infidel, who takes his views of duty and of the character and government of God from nature alone, I should unhesitatingly prefer the latter. For, whatever may be the fate of such an infidel, such an illnatured Christian as can allow no mercy for others need expect none for himself. Yet, in guarding against bigotry and sectarianism, let us beware of the opposite extreme, that of laying aside the great and fundamental doctrines of revealed religion. The sanctions of moral duty which are discoverable by the light of nature alone have but little practical influence on the philosopher, and none at all on the multitude. The urgency of present temptation is too powerful for the abstract reasoning of the mere moralist. Conscience would be but a feeble monitor, if men could silence the thunders of Sinai; and the tribunal of feeble opinion would be both corrupted and despised, were it not for that more awful tribunal which is erected at the entrance of another world. The sword, too, of the civil magistrate would interpose an unavailing obsta

cle in the way of the transgressor, were it not for that almighty Arm which holds the thunderbolt, ready to be launched against the head of the guilty. Besides, who would care to struggle through the thousand difficulties which beset the path of virtue, and forego the present advantages which not seldom are found on the side of vice, were he not cheered and supported by the thought that he is not left alone in a world forsaken of God, but that He is the witness of his conduct, and will compensate his losses and reward his labours at the resurrection of the just? For my part, fellow-citizens, my mind is decided on this subject. Education without religion is worse than none; and this legislature, I thank God, are neither strong enough to compel me, nor rich enough to bribe me, to enter a seminary within whose walls religion may not find a place. I would not be understood as insinuating, by this declaration, even the slightest suspicion that there exists in this respectable body, or any member of it, a disposition such as would prompt to such a course. But I wish, on this occasion as on every other, to be candid, explicit, and unreserved." - pp. 15-18.

These are noble sentiments. We respect the moral courage which could present them to such an audience. And when we remember the reputed Orthodoxy of the author, and know that he is regarded as the champion of the Presbyterian denomination, we much admire their genuine liberality. His views on physical, intellectual, and moral education are equally bold, sound, and valuable. Some of our college presidents this side of the mountains might be benefited by their cordial adoption. Perhaps some may think there is a want of good taste in some of the illustrations we have quoted; but we consider such an objection as altogether out of place. If you wish to produce any effect upon an audience, you must be distinctly understood. You must not expect that refinement in an assembly of western legislators which you may find in the halls of a university. That, surely, is the best style for anad dress, which best accomplishes the purposes of the author; and we heartily wish this fundamental rule were more sacredly regarded by all public speakers.

The Bloomington College is well endowed, having lands to the amount of nearly five hundred thousand dollars; not quite one hundred thousand of which is yet productive. With such a president the institution must prove an invaluable blessing to the whole state, and even to the whole valley of the Mississippi.

B. WHITMAN.

Farewell Sermon. By Rev. WELLS BUSHNELL, [late Pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Meadville, Pennsylvania.]

There is nothing remarkable in the general character of this sermon, and nothing which would have led us to notice it, but for a single paragraph which it contains. This passage is

somewhat curious as being a tolerably fair specimen of the manner in which the Presbyterians of the west are pleased to speak of Unitarians and Unitarianism; it may, therefore, be worth the quoting.

"I have no fear that any of you who have been born from above will ever be left to reject any of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel-such as the doctrine of the Trinity-the supreme divinity and vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ-the necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, &c. No true Christian, I am well persuaded, ever rejects any of these vitally important truths of Christianity, or continues any length of time in doubts about them; yet Christians may not be as much alive to their importance as they ought to bethey may not look upon those who reject them to be in as great danger as they are actually in. Now I would solemnly warn you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, against any kind of compromise in religious matters with those who hold and inculcate the soul-ruining sentiments to which I have just alluded. Let not the senseless cry of bigotry, intolerance, and persecution prevent you from calling that system of religion by its right name, viz., a refined kind of deism—absolute infidelity—another gospel and, in the language of Scripture, a damnable heresy. Be assured, Unitarianism, in some of its forms, such is its adaptation to the depraved hearts of men, will gain ground among you, unless the friends of evangelical truth continue to bear their united and solemn testimony against it. Only let the sentiment become common among the Orthodox, that it is possible for Unitarians to be true Christians, and to be saved, while relying upon that system, and the mischief that will follow no tongue can tell. When that fatal hour arrives, (I pray God it may never come,) then will the glory have departed from all your churches then will all right regard for the holy truth of God be absent, and the consequences, I hesitate not to say, will be fearful! I thank God that I have been permitted so long to bear testimony against this arch-delusion. And it is a matter of little consequence to me what verdict may be passed by some on my motives for giving this last warning and testimony against Unitarianism. I appeal from the tribunal of their judgment, to the judgment-seat of Christ."

There are certain among us who will, doubtless, regard this as quite spiceless and insipid. It is sad to think that men's palates can become so depraved that nothing should have power to gratify them short of the poisoned reputation of their brethren. As for Mr. Bushnell, we are sorry that he should have felt occasion thus to appeal from human judgment as to his motives in defaming Unitarians; but we cannot but feel equal concern

for him in view of what we deem the certainty that his appeal will hardly avail for his acquittal from the charge of actual defamation, however intended. G. NICHOLS.

An Essay on Demoniacs. By PLAIN TRUTH.

The author of this production has not seen proper to let his name appear on the title-page. We understand, however, that it was written by a gentleman who was graduated at Andover about seven years since, and is now settled in the ministry over an Orthodox society in Connecticut. The essay consists of thirtytwo closely printed duodecimo pages, and is published by the Messrs. Adams at Amherst. The writer has investigated this important subject for himself, and has dared to give the results of his inquiries to the public, although they coincide with the views usually maintained by Unitarians. His arguments are scriptural, his style perspicuous, his reasoning conclusive, and his spirit Christian. We know of no work so well adapted for general circulation on this question, and we hope the publishers will supply our booksellers in this vicinity. One or two extracts will show some of the obstacles which a lover of truth has to encounter in this land of free inquiry.

"I have offered this essay to most of the periodicals in New England, but none of them have independence enough to publish it; and therefore I do it myself. I well know that the easiest way to public favour is to write for some party; and that it is attended with not a little danger for a man to think for himself, and publish what he does think, without regard to prevailing opinions. I do not expect to please any party, and shall probably be frowned upon by most. I have a higher object than to please, and that is, to establish the meaning of Scripture. If I suffer in consequence of this, I hope to take it patiently. I do not wish to occupy much of any man's time, and consequently have adopted for my motto, Brevity and perspicacity.'

"Professor Stuart has said that he can overthrow this essay 'as easily as he can perform a sum in addition.' He has promised to do it, and I hope he will. I think, too, he is under obligation to do it; for, previous to 1826, he declined giving his pupils any instructions upon this subject, because he did not understand it; though now it is 'a sum in addition.'

"I have no interest in the views here presented. If they are not correct I shall rejoice in seeing the errors detected; and shall gladly relinquish any position when convinced that it is wrong."

We would recommend to Unitarian ministers to distribute this essay among their people. It contains, within a small compass, all that needs to be said on the subject; and, coming from an Orthodox minister, will not be likely to excite any fears in the minds of the most timid and wavering. B. WHITMAN,