Note.--How different is this instruction from the method pursued in our days; it sufficed then to have studied the Christian religion in the gospel. But now a minister of the gospel must pass the flower of his youth, in learning sciences which certainly do not render him a more zealous and virtuous Christian, than he would have been had he studied alone at the school of Jesus. Now, for four or five years he is to groan beneath the study of languages:* then he goes on to the study of the belles lettres; and then to philosophy, of little use indeed to him, and indeed injurious, as it is taught at some universities. See here, ten years of labour and expense! and for what? To gain a knowledge of subjects which have no connection with the science of happiness. Ten years, during which, the youth who has devoted himself to the preaching of the gospel, has scarcely heard mention made of it; or if he has, only as a necessary part of his studies; while he should have made it his principal object. After this comes theology, which surely ought to consist in the simple, but fundamental and thorough knowledge of revelation; the proofs which establish its truth; and above all, the duties which it recommends. Is this the method of study in the colleges? By no means. It is not the gospel which they teach; it is the various opinions of commentators, and heads of sects, on different passages of the sacred writings. Is this to conform to the spirit of religion? is it not, on the contrary, to engage one's self in that pretended wisdom, that futile science it so much reproves? Let me be allowed freely to say, that I consider the manner in which the Christian religion is taught and learnt in our days, as the principal obstacle to its progress. The gospel has no need of all this paraphernalia of science, to affect the feelings or judgment. * Latin, Hebrew, Greek, French, and Italian.