and, by such education, and by the commingling, acquaintance and fellowship which it involves, in the early, unprejudiced and impressi ble periods of life, assimilates and unites them. And it is with serious regret that we see it recommended, and zealously urged, to substitute for this common school system, a system of dividing children into sectarian schools for the avowed purpose of teaching them sectarian peculiarities-a system which is fitted to lay deep in the impressible mind of childhood the foundations of divisions and alienations-a system well fitted to drive the children of foreigners, and especially of Roman Catholics, into clans by themselves, where ignorance and prejudice respecting the native population, and a spirit remote from the American, and hostile to the Protestant, will be fostered in them.

It is with great pleasure that we have witnessed, for some years, influences, and movements, fitted and intended to wear off the sharpness of sectarian distinctions; to open and reduce the walls of sectarian division; and to soften sectarian asperity-fitted to convince men that all truth and wisdom are not in their sect; to help them see whatever is excellent in other denominations; and to dispose them, while retaining an attachment to their own peculiar ities, to place a paramount value upon the great truths in which all true Christians agree, and to unite in common enterprises and endeav. ors to promote the great objects of a common Christianity. And it is with mortification and impatience that we now see a movement virtually to subvert our common schools, so beneficent for purposes of unity and harmony, on the ground that they are not sufficiently sectarian that they do not admit sectarian instruction-will not allow, as text books, the Westminster and Church (Episcopal) Catechisms. Must we, then, carry our sectarianism into VOL. VI.

31

every thing? Can there not be one of the many spheres of educational influence, where all may meet as on common ground? Must our children be all distributed into denominational quarters, and shut up therein, for fear they will, for a few hours in the day, lack the teaching of our sectarian peculiarities? Is there nothing, not even a day-school, which we may undertake without the Westminster Catechism, or the Book of Common Prayer? Must we carry into every thing our sectarian manuals, and utter every. where our sectarian shibboleths? Verily, we had been encouraged to hope for better things. Verily, this is a backward movement, a narrowing and belittling operation, in this age of growing Christian union and charity,which we vehemently dislike.

IV. The preceding course of ar gument fully evinces the duty of good citizens to sustain the common schools rather than introduce the church schools, provided the varieties of religious belief in our communities do not render any safe and valuable system of instruction in the former impracticable.

This brings us to the great, and, so far as appears, the only objection to the common school system-the religious objection. "If (say many) we must give up the teaching of our religious doctrines in common schools, then give us parochial schools. Deliver us from an irreligious education for the young." We have no doubt that some good and able men, not illiberal, or espe cially given to sectarianism, have by such views and feelings been led to look with favor on the church school movement. Our own state of mind was for a time such that we are enabled to appreciate their views and feelings. And if it had not been, their character and general aims would preclude us from speak. ing of them otherwise than with respect and affection. We feel entire confidence however, that a full inves

public duties each under the influence of Christian principle. This truth can not be too thoroughly enforced and felt. But the state, as a state, is simply political-is of no religious denomination, or religion, whatever, any more than a bank or an insurance company-is such as to forbid the holding of its offices, and the performance of its duties, no more by infidels, Mohammedans, Jews or Roman Catholics, than by Christians and Protestants. It is, and ought to be, such that all political privileges and all civil advantages afforded thereby, are accessible and available to all alike of whatever religion. The sooner Christians, generally, understand and acknowledge this truth, the betterthe better for their own satisfaction, comfort and hope, and the better for their influence on the general interests.

"This principle (some will say) is a strong reason with us for favoring church schools; for, whether it be true or not, we see that it is the principle, which, sooner or later, must in this country, if it does not now, govern our practice in common schools." We say, however, that even on this principle, there will be no practical difficulty, if there be the exercise of a proper spirit of accommodation and liberality. This a brief examination of the matter will evince.

Before entering on this examination, it will be well to offer a preliminary observation.

Education in common schools is not, and is not designed to be, a complete education. The common school is not like a family school, in which the whole education and training of the child, or youth, for a period of its life, are designed and provided. It occupies the child, or youth, only for a few hours in the day; resigning it, for the remaining and greater part of the time, to other influence and training-that of home, the family, the sanctuary, the

Sabbath school, and society. So that, if, on the principle of division of labor, the common school should give no religious instruction whatever, but should confine itself to secular or merely intellectual education, it could not properly be said that its influence would be unfavor. able to religion, much less that it would be irreligious or atheistic. And yet this often has been said. The opponents of state schools, and the advocates of sectarian schools, in England and in this country, have very laboriously and earnestly raised against common or state schools the cry, "a godless education," "atheistic schools." The Secretary of the Assembly's Board of Education, (Rev. C. Van Rensselaer,) says in his last report to the Assembly, "The neglect of religious instruction in our schools, is doing more to nurture infidelity and immorality, than ever was in the power of Voltaire and Paine. *** Alas, how many children are common schooled out of heaven!" The italics are not ours. And one on the other side of the water, declares that "the education of these schools, as it does not include the positive religious element, a particular system of reli gious doctrine, is irreligious and atheistical." Now this, surely, is very illogical, not to say narrow and bigoted. During from four to six hours out of the twenty-four, children receive instruction in common schools exclusively in the secular branches of education, reading, writing, arithmetic, history, &c., and during the other hours of the day and the whole of the Sabbath, are left to the religious instruction of parents and guardians, Sabbath school teachers and pastors, and to the influences of religious society and of the sanctuary; yet they receive a "godless education," that secular instruction is "irreligious and atheistical," and those children "are common schooled out of heaven!" Is this good logic, or good sense?

We fully admit, and if necessary, would strenuously contend, that, of a complete education, the religious instruction and influence is an essential part, and far the most important part; and that it should be giv. en in all the periods of a child's life. Any educational institution therefore, which assumes for any considerable period, the whole education and training of a child or youth, like Girard College, or Dr. Arnold's Rugby School, or the many family schools in this country for boys or misses; and yet gives no religious instruction and training, is justly said to give an irreligious and godless education. But to say the same of a day-school which gives only secular instruction-instruction that does not discredit or interfere with, but prepares the way for and indirectly aids, religion, during only four or six hours in the day, avow edly leaving religious instruction to other and better teachers, is palpably illogical and unfair. What would be thought of a general application of such logic? A boy, who lives in his father's family, is employed six hours a day in a mechanic's manufactory, or in a merchant's store, or in a bank; but he receives, during those hours, no direct doctrinal or theological teaching; therefore that employment is irreligious, and the manufactory, the store and the bank are atheistic! A young man attends a course of chemical lectures; but in those lectures hears no theological or biblical teaching; therefore his chemical instruction is irreligious, and the chemical lectures are atheistic! A young man becomes a member of a medical school, or a law school; but he hears from the professors of medicine or law no theological instruction; therefore the medical school or the law school is irreligious and atheistic! Plainly in education, as well as in other things, there must be certainly there may be a division of labor; and secular teach.

ing may be the exclusive departinent-it must be the chief department-of the day-school; while religious teaching is provided in other and better ways. And religious teaching may be none the less religious, because it is not given by the individual who teaches reading, writing and arithmetic; and the teaching in the department of reading, writing and arithmetic, should not be accounted irreligious and atheistic because it is not conjoined or combined with theological teaching.

Let us now see how little diffi culty the members of various religious denominations, and those of no religious denomination, will find in the practical working of common schools, if they will but unite in their support with a little magnanimity and charity, guarding against a disposition either to encroach or be jealous, and with earnest desire for the common weal.

We will suppose two plans, either of which might be adopted, or one in some places, and the other in other places, and consider the work. ing of each-the plan of giving religious instruction in the schools, and the plan of giving secular instruction only, relying on other instrumentalities for the religious part of education.

Under the first plan there might be quite a variety of practice to suit the various opinions and feelings of different school districts. In a large proportion, we think a large majority, of those districts which would decide to have any religious instruction in their schools, the people would prefer the teaching of the fundamental Christian precepts, and of those fundamental Christian doctrines in which evangelical Protestant churches agree. Objections would be made, perhaps, here and there, to the teaching of those doctrines which are called, by way of distinction, orthodox or evangelical. In such ca ses there would be no objection to reading, or committing to memory,

the Holy Scriptures, and to teaching the scriptural morality and piety, as laid down in the ten commandments and the Christian precepts, and illustrated by the example of Jesus Christ. Very little jealousy has been encountered with regard to religious influence in the common schools of New England. Almost uniformly, in the country towns, the ministers of different denominations are the prominent members of the school committee and board of visiters; and they usually find no difficulty, when on their visits, in communicating whatever religious instruction, and in using whatever religious influence, their judgment approves.

If there should be districts, as probably there would be a few, in which the members of different religious denominations, not satisfied with the teaching of the common Christianity, should insist on the teaching of their distinctive doc trines, even so let it be. Let each scholar read or study his own Bible, and his own catechism. The pupils might, if it should be thought most convenient and wise, when the time for religious instruction arrived, be classified for this purpose-the Roman Catholics, with their Douay or Catholic version of the Bible, and catechism, in one class; the Episcopalians, with their Church of England catechism, in another; the Presby terians or Congregationalists, with their catechisms, in another; and the Methodists and Baptists, with their doctrinal manuals, each in an other; and if there should be other varieties, let them be classed accordingly. We think the working of this would be admirable. It would be a spectacle of unity in diversity, very pleasant to see. It would form an early habit of agree ing to disagree, and of respecting each the religious peculiarities and associations of the other, which, without danger, would tend greatly to charity and harmony in after life. We know that is practicable: for

we have seen it practiced for many years in a select school. We well recollect, that in our early days we attended, for many years, an excellent private school, in which, every Saturday forenoon, we received religious instruction on this elective affinity principle. We studied and recited our Westminster Catechism side by side with another who studied and recited the Church Catechism. And we well remember our boyish grievance in having so much the longest lesson.

Or, finally, if any districts should be found in which are some per sons who insist on distinctively sectarian teaching in the school, and yet are afraid to have their children in the same room where the catechetical manuals of other sects are studied and recited; or some persons who object to any religious teaching at all, while others insist upon it; even these rare and extreme cases could be accommoda. ted in this way-by having the di rect religious teaching, by the school teacher, or by ministers of religion, confined to particular school hours; and leaving the attendance of chil dren during those hours optional with their parents. This is the method recommended, in like cases, by Dr. Vaughan.

We will now consider the other plan the plan of dispensing entirely with direct religious instruction in the common schools, and assigning that to other places and teaching-the plan which has our deci. ded preference.*

*This is the plan preferred by that enlightened statesman, and excellent man, Lord Morpeth. "I am assuming that we can not attain that which I should myself prefer that is, schools to which all should resort, and by which all should be benefitted in common, without distinction of sect or worship; to attain which desirable end I am ready, as I have stated to all the audiences I have addressed on the subject, to forego the giving of any special religious instruction in connection with the routine business of the school, and to