The schoolmaster is abroad in our land; but whose schoolmaster? He professes to teach the people, and he does give instruction to a great many. Still the question recurs, whose schoolmaster is he? In other words, is he the people's schoolmaster? The answer to this most important, and interesting question, does not depend upon the enquiry; "whom does he instruct?" but upon this, "what does he teach?" The character of the people of each successiv generation is staked to an incalculable extent, on the capacity and faithfulness of those instructers. Grant them to be under the influence of the most just pride, of a high sense of duty, and of anxiety to be useful. Still we ask the question, “Are they what they should be?" "Do they teach what they ought?" We fear that both enquirys must receiv a negativ reply.

The schoolmaster, who is abroad in our land, is not the people's schoolmaster, in spirit and in truth, unless he teach them, what is indispensable to their prosperity, happiness and true glory. HE MUST BE THE CHRISTIAN, THE AMERICAN SCHOOLMASTER: he must give them a truly christian and American education, to make them what they should be, peculiarly a christian and American people. Are these the great end, and practical operation of the scheme of education, now establishd in our country? We know that they profess to hav these in view. But while such are the ostensible objects, (I speak thus without reproach to the purity and sincerity of their founders' motivs,) are these ends attaind in any degree, proportiond to the wants of the community, and the demand of the spirit of the age in which we liv? I speak boldly, but frankly, when I say, that in my opinion the harvest is lamentably deficient, both in the quantity and the quality. The soil is capable of as strong, and luxuriant a growth, as in any other country, ancient or modern; for who, at least on this side the Atlantic, is a believer in the fabulous philosophy of Buffon, that man is degenerate in America. The rain and the dew, darkness and sunshine, clouds and refreshing gales, are bestowd as bountifuly here, as elswhere. But neither the seed that is sown, nor the mode of tillage that is employd, is fitted to accomplish the great objects of a prudent farmer, as rich and abundant harvest, the ornament of his fields whilst in

progress, and the source of comfort, happiness, and ever increasing prosperity, when gatherd. I hav spoken metaphoricaly: but I am sure you all comprehend, that I mean to express the distinct opinion, and I may add the settled conviction, that the great body of the materials employd in education in our country, are altogether unsuited to furnish, what I regard as the only legitimate object of a system of instruction with us, A CHRISTIAN AND AMERICAN EDUCATION. Is this important end attaind? I shall endeavor to show that it is not, and why it is not: and likewise in what manner only, in my judgment at least, it can be attaind.

May I be pardond, if I turn aside for a few moments, to disburthen myself of a thought, which finds here its appropriate place. I condemn to a vast extent, all our existing schemes. I think them radicaly defectiv in elements and modes. In one, who has spent the last twenty-five years at the bar, and has never had any practical knowlege as a teacher, except in the instruction of his children, it may be deemd presumptuous to set up his speculations, against the experience which founded and administers a practical system. I am willing to bear the reproach of presumption, if it be only admitted, that I hav no selfish purpos to answer, no false pride to gratify; that I honestly believ I am engaged in the discharge of an unwelcome but important duty, and that the progress and honor of religion, the happiness and improvment of our country are my objects. May I also hope that I shall not be rebuked by the sentiment, that the course which I pursue, calls in question the wisdom, virtue and patriotism of the builders and supporters of existing schemes. In a country and an age like ours, freedom of thought and the frank declaration of our thoughts on subjects of vital interest to the people, are at once the duty and privilege of christians and Americans. He who believs that he possesses knowlege or opinions, which are fitted to save the people, is not a good man, or a good citizen, if he withholds them. In such case, he must not wait to be calld on; for the chances are, that he never will be. He must volunteer his services. If they are accepted and acted upon, he has his reward. If they are rejected, still he has his reward; the reward of Burke

and Chatham, when they pleaded in vain for conciliation with America. Addison has distinguishd between animadversions on traits of character, and on the individuals who possess them. The former are lawful and proper, the latter to be censured. May I not equaly distinguish between the qualitys which mark systems of education, and those who constructed and administer them? May I not condemn the system? whilst I admit their talents, and virtue, their wisdom, learning and experience. This shall be my object, and I trust I shall not fail.

The present system of education is in literature, precisely what the old confederation was in politics, the creature of necessity, a temporary expedient fitted to answer the exigencys of the times, which gave it birth, but totaly unfitted to meet the demands of the very next generation. The spirit of the revolution gave to the government of the old confederacy, a life and spirit, which were not its own: and the immediate influence of English institutions, habits, sentiments, and instructers, gave to our system of education, an efficacy, which did not belong to it. The country needed a political reformation: and the people demanded a new constitution. It is just the same now; I believ the country requires a reform in the scheme of instruction; and if the people have not yet demanded a new constitution in education, it is because they are not yet aware of the deficiencys in their old articles of confederacy, in the educational department.

This is an age, and ours is a country in which educated men are not at liberty to sit down contented with things as they are. Their plain duty is, to enquire and examin constantly, are things as they should be? Their dutys are activ not passiv. They are responsible for the progress of society in their time: just as the mail-carrier of to-day, is responsible for the custody and condition of the letters, for which another was responsible yesterday, and another is to be responsible to-morrow. Of all men, parents are the most deeply interested in the question, "Are things as they should be in education?" But of all men, teachers are under the strongest obligation, by reason of their opportunitys, station and influence, to examin the question, "Are things as they should be in education?" They hav becom the

voluntary substitutes for parents: theirs are the dutys of parents enhancd by their superior means of observation and judgment. My object is first to show that we hav great reason to be dissatisfy'd with things as they are; and second to point out what they should be in our systems of education.

First. Of things as they are. I proceed to designate what I regard as the prominent objectionable features of our existing systems of instruction.

1. They are not as they should be, decidedly religious. It will be granted, for no one can doubt, much less deny, that religion is no part of our plans of daily education. The scriptures, as a branch of education, are no where uniformly and steadily taught, as languages, and mathematics are. If the Bible be used as a school-reading book, or a few verses be committed to memory, still it is not made the subject of daily instruction. I speak of the fact, that the religion of the Bible is not a permanent, substantial part of education among us. I am aware that the Bible has in some few instances forced its way into a school or college; but to so limited an extent, as to make no change in the general character of the system. That system is then undoubtedly an un-christian, even if it be not an anti-christian scheme.

2. The second objectionable feature is, that the existing plan is, in no proper sense of the word, American. It is not even English, considering England and America, as one, in relation to the rest of the world, as having the same language and religion, and to a great extent, the same civil, political, and social institutions. It is true, you will find Morse's or Worcester's or some other American Geography; also some 12 mo. History of the United States, and some such work as Pitkin's civil and political History of the Union, Rawle on the Constitution, the Federalist, or Story on the Constitution, studyd in our schools or colleges; but this is actualy the whole amount of attention paid to subjects purely American. Our own history, biography, eloquence, political philosophy, and constitutional law, are with the trifling exceptions just mentiond, as little known in our systems of education, as in these pursued at Bologna, Coimbra, or Salamanca. The question is not now,

whether it ought to be so; for I am speaking, under this subdivision of my subject, of things as they are. It is sufficient then for my immediate purpos, that in point of fact, our system of education taken as a whole, has very little in it purely American. I do not scruple therefore to pronounce it decidedly unAmerican, even if it be not anti-American.

3. The third objectionable feature is, that the great mass of the system, is not only un-christian and un-American; but it actualy has so little either of christian or American qualitys in it, that it would suit equaly well any other form of government, any other state of society, any other religion, and any other national literature, regarding English and American as one. This position is undeniable; becaus it cannot be doubted, that the greater portion of time, dedicated to a liberal education in this country, is devoted to classics and mathematics. If any one doubt, let him only examin the course of study in our colleges, academys, and principal schools. If the quantity by pages merely be considerd, if it do not exceed all the other studys, at least it equals them. But when it is rememberd that the classics and mathematics require ten times as much time, as the same quantity of any other text book, whether in mental or moral philosophy, in logic or rhetoric, it is plain that I am right in my position, that the greater part of our time is spent on these studys. What now is the fact as to them? what is their true character? As to the mathematics, can it be denyd that they are just as fit a part of education in a despotism, or an aristocracy, as in a republic? Are they not equaly applicable to the state of society which prevails in Prussia, Switzerland, Spain, or Holland, as to that of Great Britain or the United States? Who can doubt that they suit as well those countrys, where the religion of Fohi, of Brama, or of Mahomet exists, as those in which christianity is the general creed. And as to national literature, hav they any more connection with that of England and America, than they hav with that of Germany, Portugal or Italy? Let us apply the same test to the classics. That they hav nothing to do with forms of government is manifest. From the classics studyd in schools, and colleges, if we rely'd on them, we should know nothing to any material extent, even