the dogmas of any sect, by a cold polemic; we would not have our own opinions so taught; but, wherever a genuine and warm spirit of religion exists, there the distinctive features of sects are softened down, at least to such an extent, as to cease to be offensive to all other true christian hearts. If Fenelon, or Leighton, or Taylor, or Scougal, were now here to take charge of our children, would it not be esteemed a privilege to enjoy their instruction and influence? Would any one object to either of them on account of the church to which he belonged? We trust that no one, of any denomination, would seriously and deliberately do so. But what if persons could be found in sufficient numbers, not indeed of such a high order, but of a similar pure holy and pious spirit; would it not be an unspeakable blessing to the land, if our schools were all taught by such? Let us not be told, that this is a dream of the imagination, which can never be realized. It can be realized. It must be realized at some future period or other of the progress of our religion. We may do something to hasten that period; first, by believing the thing possible, and then, by willing that it shall be. Let there be a deep and general feeling of the want of such teachers as we have described, and that feeling will create a supply.

A law of the State prescribes, that "the School Committee shall never direct to be purchased or used, in any of the schools, any school books, which are calculated to favor the tenets of any particular sect of Christians." This statute seems to have been loosely interpreted, to prohibit all religious instruction. We cannot see that it does so. Certainly it does not prohibit the very appropriate, we might say natural custom, which once universally prevailed, but is now, we fear, almost as universally abolished, of daily prayer in schools. We cannot believe that any thing like a general opposition would be made to this practice. One instance, indeed, is on record, of a committee man absolutely prohibiting a master from continuing the practice, under penalty of being deprived of his school. We trust that it is, and will forever remain, a solitary instance. Something would be gained, if this custom could be universally re-estab

lished. The spirit of the statute forbids the oral inculcation of the doctrines of any particular sect, but not, we conceive, suitable and discreet religious instruction. We should suppose, too, that a sufficient number of religious books might be found, which, in fair and liberal judgment, do not come within the prohibition of the statute, to serve as text-books in our schools. We are amazed at the fact stated by the Secretary of the Board of Education in his first Report, that none of the School Committees in the state have been able to find any books, which they considered admissible by the terms of the Statute. The Bible, at least, is not prohibited, yet we learn from the Report just alluded to, that neither Bible nor Testament is used in nearly two-thirds of two hundred and ninety schools, which were reported on this subject. No respect, indeed, is shown to the scriptures, by using them as the means of teaching young beginners to read and spell. All the energy of such pupils is spent upon the letter; the spirit is lost upon them, low and disagreeable ideas become connected with the sacred word; and gross and ludicrous blunders are associated with some of its finest passages, so that they can rarely be heard without a temptation to smile. We would have every school well furnished with the scriptures; but we would not have it read as a reading lesson by the lowest scholars. None but those who can read, at least fluently, should be permitted to read it aloud. Nor by any should it be read simply as a lesson in reading, but as a religious exercise, and with an explanation and enforcement of its truths by the teacher.

HOW MUCH IS REQUIRED?

It is not uncommon to hear these words used, either as a complaint or a question. Some are disposed to make it a matter of complaint, that so much is required of them, in religion, and in the cares and burdens of life. Others are continually asking-many from real doubt, and many perhaps from a willingness to find an apology for indolence and unfaithfulness -how much is required absolutely, how much and what it is necessary to learn, to believe, to do and attain, in order to meet the exact requirements of the Gospel, or escape its condemnation.

The first remark suggested by all such complaint and inquiry, is that they indicate a wrong state of mind. I do not say that they prove a wrong state of mind. I mean not to judge them or their authors. They may proceed from the best motives. There may be an honest misapprehension of truth and ignorance of duty; there may be a laudable but axnious and perplexed wish to know the whole truth and perform the exact duty. But the questions themselves, as usually put, imply something less favourable than this. They indicate a reluctance to do anything more than is absolutely required; a willingness, at best, to know and do all that is required, because it is required, and for no higher reason. Now whenever the complaint or inquiry proceeds from such a motive, it is manifestly wrong, as regards both ourselves and God. It is an intimation, that God exacts a certain amount of service on his own account, instead of offering opportunities and privileges of service, whose object is our own improvement and happiness. This is an error so palpable, and a distinction so often urged,

that it need not be dwelt upon here. But it should be well considered, whether most of the questions and difficulties about Essentials, are not owing to a forgetfulness of this same distinction. Men ask what they must do, what God requires, as if his requirements proceeded from some arbitrary and almost selfish will of his own, having only in view his own glory, and calling upon us for some sacrifices that will promote that glory. And then they ask, what these sacrifices must be-how much they must do, or suffer, or pay, if they would cancel the obligation, and escape the displeasure of their Sovereign. Unreasonable, unscriptural, and ungrateful as this view is, though every one sees its absurdity and disclaims the intention of ever acting upon it, there is reason to think that it has influence over many minds. Let any one look at some of the speculative opinions, which many say we are required to hold, and see how little they have to do with reason, conscience, or the conduct, and he will see one proof, that God is supposed to insist upon many things for his own sake only, without reference to the character or happiness of his children. This formerly was often asserted by theologians, and sometimes in the boldest and most revolting manner. Happily we never hear or read it now,—at least in this community. And most christians, we may believe, of whatever name, would be as much pained as ourselves, to hear such sentiments expressed in reference to any doctrine, as the following from an English writer. "It should be remembered, that the salvation of offenders is not the chief end of an atonement, but the glory of God's public character. The atonement does this, even if not one soul were saved."

And here comes in that word 'saved,' used, as in too many cases, as if it meant only rescued from punishment, snatched from perdition, kept out of torment. If any have so low a view of the soul, its nature, its Father, and the salvation he offers it, no wonder they ask how much is required of them, to purchase an exemption from the most awful woe. But the scriptures authorize no such construction or inference. They do sometimes use the term salvation, to express deliverance

from present and certain evil, and there may be instances, in which it is used to denote freedom from future torment. But even in these instances it usually denotes something more, while its prevalent and proper sense is far above that or anything corresponding to it. Salvation is not negative but positive. It relates not to outward condition, but to inward character. And it denotes not any attainment, any actual possession, so much as the principle of spiritual growth. It is that love of God, and purity, and truth, and Christ, which will save the soul from all that is inconsistent with these or forbidden by them, imbue it with their spirit, and carry it continually nearer and nearer to their exaltation and perfection. Salvation is, in truth, so far as single words can define it, holiness, happiness, perfection.

Keep this in view, and how strange do all such questions seem-How much is required? what is essential to my salvation? Ask rather, For what was I designed? of what am I capable? to what point am I permitted to rise? for what degree or kind of perfection may I hope? Ask your nature, that nature which the Framer of bodies and the Father of spirits hath given, what are its own wants, its cravings? what will meet these cravings, exercise all its capacities, fill its highest aspirations? Let me learn this, and I shall know what is required of me; required, not arbitrarily and rigidly by a ruler and judge, but mercifully and gloriously by the nature given and the race set before me, by the very essence and deep wants and indefinite capacity of the soul which God has made, and which Christ lived and died to save, to purify, to perfect. All is required, that will enable me to work together with God and Christ for this high end; all of prayer, and purpose, and moral perseverance, all use of means, and elevation of aim, and faith in God, and devotion to Jesus Christ, 'the way, the truth, and the life.' All is required, that is permitted; whatever I can do, I must do. My nature demands it. My interest demands it, and the interest of all, the welfare of my brother and of the race. I thirst for happiness-such as will fill the soul and endure forever. Am I not called, 'by all possible motives,