same thing which Judge Duncan calls "general Christianity;" and the same which is intended by Chief Justice Kent, and the same which dictates toleration and liberty of worship, in our various State institutions. It has not been defined, vindicated and proclaimed, because Christians have spent their strength upon these differences, and not upon their agreement.

The question then returns, shall not the Christianity of the broader platform by which men may secure remission of sins and peace with God, this general Christianity which Judges Kent, Duncan and Story, pronounce to be part of the common law of the country, this "common standard" about which Dr. Chalmers called upon his countrymen to rally, this beneficent Christianity which speaks toleration in the constitutions of our States, and invites men of every creed and clime to our shores, our hospitality, and our protection, that Christianity which is the basis of our civilization, the fountain of our morality, the sanction of our official and judicial oaths, that religion which is preached by Chaplains to our various Legislative bodies, and to our Army and Navy, be taught in our schools, and be made known to our chil dren? And if not, shall the reason be given that we insist more strenuously upon the points of difference, than upon the points of agreement; that we are more bent upon the teaching of our peculiarities, than upon the teaching of our essentials? Shall it be said, to the injury of Christianity, that we prefer to have children go without religious instruction, rather than have them instructed in the "common standard?" This spirit, which is a reproach to Christians, is fatally indulged at this moment throughout this coun

try; let every man who entertains it, examine himself anew, to see whether he is not forgetting Him, who said, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not." This voice should be heard in every school in the land, as it repeats, "Suffer little children to come unto me;" and no child should grow up without being taught from whom this invitation comes and how deeply he is interested in it.

SECTION XIV.

Professor Stowe's Report on Public Schools, made to the Governor of the State of Ohio. "Thoughts on Popular Education.”

WE gladly call to our aid a witness who has bestowed the most earnest and enlightened attention upon this subject. Professor C. E. Stowe was appointed by the Governor of the State of Ohio, in 1836, to visit the educational institutions of Europe, and make report of such matters as might appear to him worthy of their attention in Ohio. In speaking of the system of Prussia, which, in his opinion, combined more advantages than any other, he says, among other things, "In regard to the necessity of moral instruction, and the beneficial influence of the Bible in schools, I inquired of all classes of teachers and men, of every grade of religious faith, instructors in common schools, high schools and schools of art, of professors in colleges, universities and professional seminaries, in cities and in the country, in places where there was a uni

formity, and in places where there was a diversity of creeds, of believers and unbelievers, of rationalists and enthusiasts, of Catholics and of Protestants; and I never found but one reply, and that was, that to leave the moral faculty uninstructed was to leave the most important power of the human mind undeveloped, and to strip education of almost every thing that can make it valuable; and that the Bible, independently of the interest attending it, as containing the most ancient and influential writings ever recorded by human hands, and comprising the religious system of almost the whole of the civilized world, is in itself the best book that can be put into the hands of children, to interest, to exercise, and to unfold their intellectual and moral powers. Every teacher whom I consulted, repelled with indignation, the idea that moral instruction is not proper for schools; and spurned with contempt the allegation, that the Bible cannot be introduced into common schools without encouraging a sectarian bias in the matter of teaching; an indignation and contempt which, I believe, will be participated in by every high-minded teacher in Christendom.”

After describing with some particularity, the mode of religious instruction adopted, which embraced a pretty thorough knowledge of the great moral and religious truths of the Bible, its didactic lessons, and its important narratives; the Professor remarks of the system, that "Its morality pure and elevated, its religion entirely removed from the narrowness of sectarian bigotry, what parent is there, loving his children, and wishing to have them respected and happy, who would not desire that they should be educated

under such a kind of moral and religious influence as has been described? Whether a believer in revelation or not, does he not know that without sound morals, there can be no happiness, and that there is no morality like the morality of the New Testament? Does he not know that without religion, the human heart can never be at rest, and that there is no religion like the religion of the Bible? Every well-informed man knows, that as a general fact, it is impossible to impress the obligations of morality with any efficiency on the heart of a child, or even on that of an adult, without an appeal to some mode which is sustained by the authority of God; and for what code will it be possible to claim this authority, if not for the code of the Bible ?"

To very special inquiries addressed to him by Professor Stow, a distinguished Prussian teacher replied, "In Prussia, we have tried all sorts of ways; by extracts, by new translations, by commentaries written expressly for schools; but, after all these trials, there is now but one opinion among all acquainted with the subject, and that is, that the whole Bible, just as it stands in the translations in common use, should be a reading and recitation book in all the schools."

In regard to the relative importance of public teaching in the European monarchies and our republics, the Professor expresses his opinion thus: "Republicanism can be maintained only by universal intelligence and virtue among the people, and disinterestedness and fidelity in the rulers. Republics are considered the natural foes to monarchies; and, when both start up side by side, it is taken for granted that one must supplant the other. Hence their watchful

jealousy of each other. Now, when we see monarchies strengthening themselves by such a thorough system of education, secular and religious, as that we have described, are not republics warned to consider whether they are not exposed to double danger from vice and neglected education? And do not patriotism and the necessity of self-preservation call upon us to do more and better for the education of our whole people than any despotic sovereign can do for his? Did we stand alone-were there no rival governments on earth-or if we were surrounded by despotisms of degraded and ignorant slaves, like those of the ancient Oriental world—even then, without intelligence and religion in the great mass of the people, our liberties would soon be lost. How emphatically must this be the case now, when the whole aspect of things is changed, and monarchies have actually stolen a march upon republics in the promotion of sound education ?"*

From "Thoughts on Popular Education in the United States," by a citizen of Pennsylvania, published in 1836, we take the following:-"Our object has been to show that all the children in our land deserve to be well and seasonably educated - they have a right to expect this at the hands of the governments under which they live, if they are to be held responsible for the discharge of duties of citizenship. No man can escape from responsibility in this matter. Under such institutions as ours, we stand

* Report of Professor E. C. Stow, to the General Assembly of Ohio, on "Elementary Public Instruction in Europe," made in 1837. Reprinted by order of the Legislature of Massachusetts, in 1838. Pages 9, 19, 53, 64.