have less reflection, but much talent for acquiring erudition; and, in the last place, the greater number do not excel in any department of knowledge, of art, or of science whatever; but may learn any thing that is necessary to qualify them to become useful members of society.

The preceding facts being ascertained by observation, we may examine the question, Whether the same kind of education will equally suit every individual?

The aim in educating all must be the same, namely, to render them virtuous and intelligent; but as the natural endowment of individuals is different, all persons are not capable of the same improvement, and every one cannot be induced by the same motives to pursue the same end.

The faculties proper to man, being the aim of all our actions, should be cultivated in every person as much as possible, but the natural difference will be observed with respect to the energy of these, as well as of the other faculties in different individuals. Nature, by her endowment, constitutes some characters moral, and others religious. The latter will act more from faith, the former from duty. Yet, the law, "Love

thy neighbour as thyself," must be constantly held up to both, as the object of their exertions, and obedience to it required, even of those who do not feel inclined to do so.

If the superior motives be not sufficiently strong to produce this obedience, the lower faculties must be employed. The influence of the latter powers, then, is double; they constitute motives themselves, and they also assist the superior feelings to arrive at their gratification. Among the lower motives, selfishness and fear are the most generally energetic, and no legislation can exclude the use of them.

Thus, a true system of education cannot be founded on single views, or established according to single individuals; it must be adapted to human nature. Whoever will direct man, ought not to hold out only one motive of action. He who endeavours to change every person into a philosopher, and he who will never reason with any one is equally mistaken. A preacher who invites others to become morally good, will err when he trusts entirely to the motives which govern his own actions, not being aware that sometimes such motives make no impression on others. He ought to bring forward all possible

reasons to touch all his auditors, and make them feel those motives which they are susceptible of. He ought to be particularly careful to be understood, and to speak by examples. Moreover, his precepts must be confirmed by his own actions. He who teaches order and cleanliness, must be orderly and cleanly himself; he who preaches peace and charity, must not deny these principles by his moral conduct. Those who say, Follow my words, but not my actions, are unfit for their situation, and ought to be replaced by more worthy subjects.

It follows, that the feelings, as well as and even still more than the intellectual faculties, ought to be considered before children are destined to certain professions, or adults to certain places. To bring up a child endowed with great animal propensities, such as Amativeness, Combativeness, Acquisitiveness, Self-esteem, &c. to the church, whatever his intellect may be, is the height of error and absurdity. Nothing has done greater harm to society, than placing individuals in professions and situations for which they were unfit, not only through the want of some necessary faculties, but also through the inordinate activity of some of the opposite ones. Strong amativeness or cruelty produces mischief in a Roman Catholic

priest, as does the love of domination in the representative of a free nation, corruptibility in a judge, fear in a general, &c. The feelings, also, ought to be exercised with a view to the future destination of children. Combativeness is to the soldier what Veneration is to the clergyman; but, in both, benevolence and justice should be active.

It is also impossible to insist too much on the importance of considering the effect of the natural feelings, in the choice of persons to rule or to lead society. This highly interesting point can be perceived, in all its magnitude, by those only who are convinced, that the faculties which produce feelings, are natural gifts differing in every individual; that they are independent of intellect, and are the principal cause of our actions. In this way, fishermen, who are eminently gifted in natural sentiments, may be better moralists than high priests, mathematicians, orators, or philosophers, who excel only in intellect, and whose moral sentiments are weak compared with their inferior propensities.

An opposite error, but not less hurtful to society than the preceding, is committed by those who despise and neglect the cultivation of the

intellectual faculties. Some religious persons of this kind, have endeavoured to put aside all temporal concerns, and have become hermits. Others avoid all pleasure, or even torture their body, in order to be agreeable to their CREATOR. Others represent a knowledge of the Bible, as a substitute for all other information, in the same way as the Mahometan confines his knowledge to the Koran. Our ignorance of human nature is the cause of such mistakes. The faculties which produce feelings, constitute only one part of our nature; the other part is intellectual, and the feelings work in darkness if not enlightened by the understanding.

Intellectual education too, is frequently misconducted from ignorance of human nature.

The

basis, however, of the direction of intellect is the same as that of feelings. A plurality of intellectual powers exists, and they are possessed in different degrees of strength by different individuals. The reflective faculties are essential to our moral conduct in every situation; and are necessary to form clear conceptions in all intellectual operations, while the perceptive faculties are applicable only to certain kinds of employment. The reflective powers then should be exercised in every individual.