The adoption of this plan settles entirely the whole vexed question about sectarian religious teaching, by avoiding religious teaching altogether a fact which decidedly recommends the plan, provided it can be practiced without detriment to religious interests. That it can, experience abundantly teaches. It is no new plan. It has been practiced, essentially, in the common schools of New England for thirty or forty years. There has been, probably, some variety in different districts. In a few, perhaps, the catechism has been taught, though we have known no such case with in thirty years. Usually there has been no direct religious instruction, except when the school visiters, at the close of their examination, have made addresses to the children of a moral or religious character. It has been a common practice to read the Bible in classes, or in the whole school as one class. But this without note or comment can hardly be called religious instruction, and probably is, for religious purposes, worse than nothing, because of the irreverent and trifling associations thereby connected with that sacred book and on this account it has, to our knowledge, been dispensed with by some excellent private teachers. So that we may say that the plan of giving no direct religious instruction, has, in its essential features, been practiced generally in the common schools of New England for thirty years. And yet we have not found that the children of New England have been “common schooled out of heaven." We have not found that this practice has "done more to nurture infidelity and immorality than ever was in the power of Voltaire or Paine." On the con.

leave that to their own pastors, to their own parents, to the Sunday school, to their own sanctuaries, and to the no less precious altar of the family hearth."Speech of Lord Morpeth, at Wakefield, in August last.

trary, there is now much less of infidelity and immorality in New Eng. land than there was forty years ago. Nor have our most enlightened Christian men perceived, in the results of the practice, any detriment to religious interests.

We

There is, in our view, a manifest and great disadvantage in mixing up the teaching of sacred truths with the hurry, bustle, irksomeness, and restless roguery of a day-school. And there is, on the other hand, a manifest and great advantage in having such teaching by itself, where it can be approached with becoming seriousness, and linked with solemn and auxiliary associations. And therefore we prefer a division of labor in the work of education; assigning the department of secular instruction to day-schools, and that of direct religious instruction to other, and for the purpose better, instrumentalities-Sabbath school teachers, the sanctuary, pastors, the family, and especially parents. would not have the responsibility of such teaching in any measure taken off from these instrumentalities, by the idea that such teaching is given in the day-school. Indeed, such teaching is chiefly provided, by judicious parents and guardians, through these other instrumentalities; and little reliance is placed by them on direct religious instruction in day-schools, even where it is given. We regard it as a calamity to encourage in any way the fallacious idea that direct religious instruction in a day-school is of much value, and can take the place, to any extent, of such instruction given elsewhere. The example and spirit, the insensible influence, of a iruly pious teacher, we estimate very highly. Such a teacher will have an important religious influence on the pupils, though giving no doctrinal instruction: while, on the other hand, a teacher of an irreligious and trifling character, though teaching a catechism, or theology in oth

er forms, would have an influence far from salutary. We can not be too careful as to the personal character and influence of our teachers. But as to theological instruction, we can not ordinarily expect them to have the proper qualifications for it; nor have they, in a day-school, the proper place and time for it. It should be given, we prefer that children should receive it, in other places, and from better instructors.

The day-school is, indeed, a powerful auxiliary to religion, in the way of preparation. It teaches elementary knowledge, and gives the power of studying the Bible and other religious books. It disciplines the intellectual faculties. It disciplines the will, and the moral feelings. By a proper government, it teach es and necessitates subordination to superiors, subjugation of self-will and self-indulgence, regard for truth, control of the temper, industrious, patient and persevering application, and that reverence for the Deity and sacred things, and those universal principles of morals, in which all agree. In a word, the daily discipline of a school, and the incidental moral teaching it implies, work right principles into the minds of the pupils, and that in the permanent form of habits. So that the dayschool is an important preparative and aid, to religious teaching. But its direct religious or doctrinal instruction, when attempted, is of very little value, if it is not, as we think it is on the whole, worse than nothing. Of course there are man. ifest and decided exceptions-in the case of teachers of peculiar piety, and competency for religious instruction. But this does not invalidate the general truth: which is attested by enlightened observationthe observation of those acquainted with private schools in which religious instruction is attempted, (for, as we have said, there has been al most none in our public schools,) and by the observation of those who

have been familiar with the national schools of Great Britain, where somewhat thorough religious teaching is required. Some testimony of this latter kind we will adduce.

The Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel, whom our readers know as an able and evangelical clergyman of the church of England, in a report, which, as an inspector of schools, he addressed to the Committee of Council on Education, after having spent two months in visiting 195 schools, writes thus-we have room for only a short extract." But it was in their understanding of the Scriptures, daily read, that I regret ted to find the most advanced children of the national schools so extremely defective. Not only were they often ignorant of the principal facts recorded in the Bible, but they could not answer even the simplest questions upon the chapters which they had most recently read. Nor was their religious ignorance lessened by their knowledge of the catechism. I several times examined the first class upon a portion of the catechism, and I never once found them to comprehend it. * Both in reading the Scriptures to the monitors, and in repeating the catechism, the children showed a mark. ed inattention and weariness, occasionally varied, when the master's eye was not on them, by tokens of roguish merriment. * Being thus made the medium through which reading and spelling are taught, it (the Bible) becomes associated in their minds with all the rebukes and punishments to which bad reading, or false spelling, or inattention in class exposes them; and it is well if being thus used for purposes nev• er designed, it do not become permanently the symbol of all that is irksome and repulsive."

Equally decisive, and more directly to the confirmation of our position, is the testimony of Dr. Vaughan.-" For our own part, we have always entertained a very low opin

ion of the religious instruction giv. en in day-schools, and of the reli gious impression produced by it. We have thought that a fuss has been made about it wonderfully greater than the thing itself would justify. It has reminded us too much of our Oxford religionists, who would pass for being very pious because prayers are read in the college chapel every morning. We admit most readily, that the training of a good day-school may prepare a young mind for receiving religious lessons with advantage from the lips of a parent, a Sunday school teacher, or a minister; but the man must have been a sorry observer of day-schools, who can regard the religious instruction obtain ed there as being, while existing alone, of any great value."*

"But, while I believe many pious persons are most honest in their demands on this point, and while I admit that many teachers in daily schools do their best to give a religious cast to their instructions, I am still obliged to repeat, that I have a very humble opinion of the direct religious instruction which is given in day-schools, or that can ever be given in such institutions. Nor do I speak without experience on this subject. I have served more than one apprenticeship in the superintendence of schools on the British system, and the great benefit of such schools I have always found to consist, not in any direct religious impression produced by them, but in their adaptation to prepare the young for receiving religious instruction with advantage elsewhere. My experience, in this respect, must be, I feel assured, that of a great majority of persons who have been observant of the working of day. schools. In other departments, men soon become alive to the advantage of a division of labor; and why

should not popular education par take of benefit from such arrangements? Why might not one part of education be given by the school. master, another by the parent, by the minister of religion, or by the Sunday school teacher? Does religion cease to be a part of educa tion, because not taught by the person who teaches reading and arithmetic? In fact, is there not danger that sacred things may lose something of their sacredness by being mixed up with the rough and often noisy routine of a day-school? One would think that to give religion a place apart after this manner, and to approach it with a special seriousness, would be to secure attention to it, only the more becoming and prom-, ising. Sure I am, there are many considerate and devout persons who would prefer such a method purely on account of its better religious tendency. Let the day-school in culcate a reverence of truth and justice, and a love of every thing kind, generous and noble-hearted, and let the directly religious instruc tion be grafted upon such teaching, and it will be the fault of the agents, and not of the method, if you do not realize a scheme of popular ed ucation of the highest value. Nor can I doubt that the intermixture of the children, of all sects, in such schools, would tend to abate our sectarian animosities, and render the next generation, in that respect, an improvement on the past.'

*Letter to the editor of the Morning

17, p. 271.

ucation.

neficent system of common schools, and to substitute for it a system of sectarian schools, which must be inferior in character, and (what is more important) can not perform the work which common schools, when wisely and energetically administered, perform so well-the vital work of general education, of educating the whole people-a system, moreover, hostile to social and civil harmony. We can not but think that if the subject is fairly placed before the public mind, this movement will be arrested. We hope-perhaps it is hoping against hope-that our

Presbyterian brethren (old school) who have recommended and commenced the movement, will recede. Certainly we hope that no other denomination will follow their example. Far distant be the day-let it never come-when, in our beloved New England, the time-tested and time-honored common school sys. tem shall be abandoned, or weakened. Rather let renewed, persevering and united efforts be put forth to give it universally that perfection, of which it is capable, and which already, in many places, it has nearly attained.

THE discourses which we have taken as the basis of our article, while severally of much significance, derive an additional interest from their relation to one another; a relation which we will at once proceed to explain.

The first is an ordination sermon by the Rev. H. Bellows, pastor of the church of the Divine Unity in the city of New York. It is chiefly remarkable for a very earnest, and very orthodox, exhibition of the object and efforts of the Christian minister. It commences with a notice of the charge made against Cal. vin and his school, of an inordinate

1. Relation of Christianity to Human Nature.-A Sermon preached at the ordination of Mr. Frederick Knapp as colleague Pastor of the First Congregational Church in Brookline, Mass., on Wednesday, Oct. 6, 1847. Published by request of the Society. Boston.

2. Nature of the Atonement.-A Discourse delivered by appointment of the Synod of New York and New Jersey, on Wednesday evening, Oct. 20, 1847. By Rev. Thomas H. Skinner, Pastor of the Mercer Street Presbyterian Church, New York.

3. Doctrine of the Atonement.-The Christian Inquirer. New York. VOL. VI.

32

attachment to the epistolary and doctrinal portions of the New Tes tament. Against this charge Mr. Bellows offers a vindication, which, though by no means complete, indicates so just and candid a view of the subject, that we accept it with very sincere gratitude. He passes to a censure, equally just, in our opinion, of the somewhat vague and unsettled views of those who make this objection, and specifies their "want of a Christian theology," as a serious deficiency. Entering thus upon his subject, he proceeds to consider the nature of the minister's efforts, with reference to "the end, the obstacles, and the instrumentality."

So entirely is the sermon conformed to the views frequently cherished among ourselves, so ex. act is its coincidence of statement with a certain kind of evangelical preaching, that we despair of conveying any just view of it without larger extracts than our limits will allow. The object of the preacher he defines to be "a fixed and attainable change. It is a new heart that he is to create. His object is not so much to form the Christian

character as to beget the Christian nature. His aim is the regeneration of man, not his development," &c. The grand obstacle to the sovereignty of God in the soul, he main tains to be a natural and hereditary depravity; a something lying back of human character, and for which, though not the result of any activity of ours, we are consciously and justly responsible. His statements under this head are somewhat remarkable, and fall short of the highest orthodoxy only in failing to affirm that man's depravity is total. He says, (p. 20,) “I fear not to recognize an alienation of the natural man from God. I fear not to see a native proclivity to evil in man. I hesitate not to acknowledge the influence of hereditary depravity. Man is not only imperfect, prone to evil, certain to fall from perfect purity and obedience, by the very constitution of his original nature as Adam fell, but he is far more exposed by his constitutional relations to sinful progenitors, and his ordinary exposure to sinful parental and social influences anterior to his moral agency. Nay, further, I scruple not to acknowledge his accountableness for sin which he can not but commit," &c. This is certainly a very near approach to standard or thodoxy. We hesitate not to pronounce it after a highly approved pattern of sound undiscriminating and resolute orthodox assertion. These facts justify, in Mr. B.'s opinion, no objection to the purity or justice of God, unless we could

first establish the point that there are no provisions for strengthening this moral feebleness, and mending this sinful bias, and even turning them to the account of man's moral dignity and God's glory."

Admitting himself an extended scheme of such "provisions," he maintains that moral and physical evil sustain precisely the same relation to the divine government, are means alike of moral discipline to

not permit us to examine it particularly; though we can not pass it by without some expression of our pleasure in the perusal of it. It is chaste, yet forcible in style, artistic and scholarlike in arrangement, and exceedingly just and vigorous in its reasonings. The view maintained in it exhibits the atonement, not as a satisfaction to any vindicatory impulse of the divine nature, but as a measure rendered indispensable by the perfection of the divine character and government. The divine character being the grand security of the universe, requires the fullest manifestation. Where transgression has occurred, penalty is ordinarily the indispensable means of this manifestation; and if penalty be systematically forborne, some measure which may equally illustrate the emotions and purposes of God towards sin, becomes of the highest necessity. It ought perhaps to be observed, however, that the operation of a retributive sentiment in the infliction of literal punishment, the discourse nowhere denies; it is only in reference to a substituted sufferer that Dr. S. questions its influence. With this limitation, we deem his argument upon the subject altogether correct. The discourse, after presenting this view in a most distinct and discriminating manner, discusses briefly, but decisively, the whole body of the current objections to the doctrine, and concludes with an emphatic rebuke