habit of ridiculing, deriding, or scoffing at religion; for such a habit may well be supposed to betray a want of that liberality which the State encourages in religious concernments, and an incapacity to teach in the magnanimous spirit of its laws (Id., p. 36).

SEC. 10. CONNECTICUT.-Although this State may have a record not altogether so clean and so free from the spirit of religious intolerance as that of Rhode Island, yet it would be very unjust to judge Connecticut at this day by its ancient colonial laws (Ped. Law, art. 5, sec. 4). The history of the original colonies of which this State was formed, as well as the action of the General Assembly after the union of these colonies, clearly establish the fact that a good common-school education has ever been considered the birthright of every child of the State. In 1641, a free-school was ordered to be set up in New Haven, and "the pastor, Mr. Davenport, together with the magistrates, was directed to consider what allowance should be paid to it out of the common stock." This is supposed to have been the first small beginning of the American system of freeschool education. In some form, the duty of educating the whole community has been recognized in Connecticut ever since (Com. School Acts of Conn., 1864, p. 2). All the laws of every State must be made and executed in accordance with the letter and spirit of its Constitution, for that is the fundamental law, and contains the principles upon which the government of the State is founded. On examining the Constitution of Connecticut (adopted in 1818), we find that the Rhode Island idea of religious liberty has been almost wholly adopted in that instrument. "The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in this State, provided that the right hereby declared and established, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State" (Const. of Conn., art. 1, sec. 3); but it is, nevertheless, held and declared to be "the duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the Universe" (Id., Art. 7, sec. 1); and, perhaps, Connecticut teachers can constitutionally be required to so worship.

SEC. 11. MASSACHUSETTS.-The Constitution of this State says: "No subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty, or estate for worshiping God in the manner and seasons most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments: provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship" (Const. of Mass., art. 1, sec. 2). But "it is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the Universe" (16.) "The public worship of God, and instructions in piety, religion, and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people, and the security of a republican government (Const. of Mass. Amend., art. 11). It would

seem, therefore, that the teachers of Massachusetts might constitutionally be required not only to worship God, as in Connecticut, but to do this "publicly, and at stated seasons." The school committees are prohibited by statute (Gen. Statutes, tit. xi., ch. 38, sec. 27) from directing any schoolbooks calculated to favor the tenets of any particular sect of Christians to be purchased or used in any of the town schools. It seems to be the settled policy of the State, however, to require the use of the Bible in the public schools; in fact, since the statute of 1855, "the daily reading of some portion of the Bible, in the common English version," is made obligatory. As Connecticut claims the honor of having established the first free-school on the continent, so Massachusetts claims that "she, first of all, established a sytem of public instruction, and supported it by the essential and distinctive characteristics of a State-the right and duty of taxation." (Sec. Rep., 1861, p. 57.) Neither Massachusetts nor Connecticut, however, can dispute with Rhode Island the honor of having been the first "to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained with a full liberty in religious concern ments" (Ped. Law, art. 5, sec 8). Rhode Island's "sure foundation of happiness to all America," has certainly been adopted to a considerable extent in Connecticut and Massachusetts; but the former gives religious liberty to those only who worship God, and the latter gives it only to those who worship God "publicly and at stated seasons."

SEC. 12. MAINE.-This State has adopted the principal features of the Rhode Island theory of religious liberty, at least in substance. No religious test can be required as a qualification for any office or trust (Const. of Me., art. 1, sec. 3). It seems, however, that a rule of school, requiring every scholar to read from the Protestant version of the Bible, may be enforced (38 Maine, 376).

SEC. 13. NEW HAMPSHIRE.-After setting forth some principles that harmonize perfectly with those advanced in Rhode Island, the Constitution of this State asserts and maintains as follows: "As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay, in the hearts of men, the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the Deity, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote these important purposes, the people of this State have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower, the Legislature to authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies, within this State, to make adequate provision, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers, of piety, religion, and morality" (Const. of N. H., part 1, art. 6).

SEC. 14. VERMONT.-To a declaration of religious liberty, amounting to

about the same in substance as that which is maintained in Rhode Island, the Constitution of this State adds the following: "Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath, or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God" (chap. 1, art. 3). SEC. 14. NEW YORK.-The "lively experiment" of Rhode Island has, it is thought, been fully adopted by the Empire State, and is, at least in substance, incorporated in the Constitution. "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State to all mankind (Const. of N. Y., art. 1, sec. 3). The school-teacher, in common with all others, can insist upon enjoying the benefit of this constitutional provision, but it behooves him, nevertheless, to bear in mind, under all circumstances, that he is the agent of the State, and must teach in the spirit of its laws. He should never for a moment forget that his scholars are protected by the law equally with himself. While he may exact from his examiners and others, he must himself also exhibit the liberality and magnanimity in this respect that is proclaimed in the organic law of his State, or he is unfit for the vocation of public teacher, and he may be so declared. The State, however, so far as it can consistently with its organic law, and without prejudice to any, would foster piety in the citizen; and, therefore, it is not considered unlawful to open and close school with prayer and reading of the Scriptures, provided that all discussion of controverted points and sectarian dogmas be carefully avoided. The policy of New York is the same in this respect as that of Rhode Island (sec. 8).

SEC. 15. NEW JERSEY.--The law as to religion is the same, in substance, in this State as in New York and Rhode Island (Const. of N. J., art. 1, sects. 3, 4.)

SEC. 16. PENNSYLVANIA.-This State, like several others, seems to contradict itself on the subject of religious liberty. "No preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishments or modes of worship" (Const. of Pa., art. 9, sec. 3.) "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth" (Id., sec. 4). If this is an attempt to imitate the liberality of Rhode Island, it is not altogether successful. "We, therefore, declare, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of his own voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor disqualified from holding office; nor otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; and that every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to profess, and by argument to maintain, his opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge,

or affect his civil capacity" (Const. of R. I., art. 1, sec. 3). It will be noticed that no condition is here interposed, but the liberty is complete and unrestricted. In Pennsylvania, teachers might constitutionally be required to acknowledge the being of a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments" (Const. of Pa., art. 9, sec. 4), but in Rhode Island such a requirement would be unconstitutional. In practice, however, it does not appear that the people of the one State are less liberal than those of the other. For in Pennsylvania it is held that "church influence should never be permitted to swerve a director from the line of duty in the selection of teachers" (School Doc., No. 159); and "the reli gious predilections of pupils and their parents and guardians, are required to be sacredly respected-sectarian instruction not being considered the province of the schoolmaster but of the parent or guardian, and the spiritual teacher selected by him (School Doc., No. 162). Consequently, sectarian works are excluded from the schools (School Doc., No. 187). But "the Scriptures come under the head of text-books, and they should not be omitted from the list" (School Doc., No. 186).

A

OUR NORMAL SCHOOLS.

TEACHERS' seminary was first established by Franke, about 1704, at Halle, in Prussia; and during the present century the example of Prussia has been followed by Holland, France, Great Britain, and Russia. In our own country, we find that as early as 1816 Mr. Denison Olmsted (afterwards Prof. Olmsted of Yale College) proposed for Connecticut a "plan of an Academy for Schoolmasters." But we have no proof that this ever became any thing more than a suggestion. The State of New York first took definite action in so important a matter, in the year 1836, by adding a Teachers' Department to one Academy in each of its eight Senatorial districts. However, as these "Teachers' Departments" were not a primary but a secondary object in the Academies, perhaps some would think they ought not to be considered an institution by themselves. At all events, it was Massachusetts that first established in this country the Normal School, so called,—a school designed exclusively for the training of teachers for the Common Schools. In 1838, the subject having been for some time a matter of interest with friends of education in the State, the generosity of Edmund Dwight, of Boston, placed at the disposal of the Board of Education the sum of $10,000 for this purpose, provided the Legislature would furnish an equal sum. This was done; and soon after, aided by further contributions from individuals and towns, three Normal Schools were established, at Lexington, Barre, and Bridgewater. The State now has four,-at Bridgewater, Framingham, Salem, and Westfield.

We did not intend in this article to give any statistics of the rise and present condition of Normal Schools in the different States; we have only given enough to tell of the beginnings of the system in this country. We have at present a few words to say upon the merits and faults of the system.

That the theory of Normal Schools is a good one, few will deny. Although observation confirms us in the belief that the best teachers have a natural aptness for their work,-an aptness which is better than all training, and that the faculty to teach, as well as the faculty to govern, is a gift; although, too, on the other hand, no amount of training will make a good teacher of many a one we can think of, yet these are the extremes. The question is, whether those of moderate abilities and fair adaptation to such a work are not better qualified for it by a course of instruction under competent persons, which is designed to test and compare the efficacy of different methods, and to afford a sort of trial-ground for the practice of these methods; also, whether even those of superior abilities and decided powers of adaptation are not thus roused to a keener interest in their work, if not to the discovery of new and improved methods? As for those whom nature never designed for the important work of teaching, and whom, consequently, no art can qualify, such a system ought, it seems to us, to do great good to the community by pronouncing them incompetent, and refusing to recommend them at the conclusion of the course of study. Certainly two years should be sufficient to sift out all such; and perhaps, to be perfectly fair to them, unless in extreme cases, they should be allowed to remain through this time, that their mental status may be fully known.

Yes, we think the theory of the Normal School is sound; and its practical workings have not prevented many great thinkers from giving testimony in its favor; such men as Franke, Cousin, Lord Brougham, Dr. Channing, De Witt Clinton, etc., etc. There are only two points of difficulty, as it seems to us. First, there should be at the head of such schools superior men. They should be men of liberal education (not merely, as the phrase is, "liberally educated"); for if their knowledge is bounded by the limits of arithmetic, geography, and grammar, and a smattering of information on higher topics, their pupils will be very likely to be as superficial and pretentions as they are. They should themselves have been experienced and successful teachers; for thus only can they give practical instruction in the art of teaching. Moreover, they should be men of genial disposition and cultivated manners,-in one word, gentlemen; for their unconscious influence in this very important part of education, upon those whom they are thus preparing for the teacher's work, will be again reproduced upon the more impressible minds of children. Again, there should be great care in pronouncing any fit to teach and recommending them to the public. In Prussia, besides the Teachers' Seminaries, there