It must be seen what it consists of, before it be known how and to what it can consistently be applied. The description, however, must necessarily be a brief one.

The science of education-for every branch of knowledge is a science-comprehends certain principles deduced and generalised from an acquaintance with the constitution and character of man. In ascertaining what this character is, two sources are available, the book of nature and the book of revelation. By means of these it is found that he is a compound being, consisting of separate parts, the two great divisions of which are body and spirit. But as one tree may consist of many branches, so each of these distinct natures has a ramified and complicated existence of its own. The former exists by what are called organs; and the latter, while in the body, manifests itself by means of faculties. Again, of these faculties there are several varieties, just as the body is composed of different organs, that is, as it appears, several modes by which the soul of man operates upon the body, and is affected by it; and the two great divisions of these again, are his mental and moral powers. The latter are said to be passive feelings, the former active principles; and a deduction from this is, that the whole nature of man is influenced in two ways, actively and passively.

Now, according to this description of the subject to be educated, an obvious inference arises, that a different influence must be applied to the different parts of man's nature. His bodily organs, from the largely developed limbs, to those microscopical and invisible tubes pervading the whole interior of his frame, and from which are derived so incontestable proofs of a Divine mechanism, all demand care and attention of a nature peculiar to themselves. Hence is deduced the necessity of a physical education for the complete development and healthy action of these powers.

His intellect, also, requires an education peculiarly

its own. It seems to subserve the spiritual nature in a manner similar to that by which the stomach administers to the body. The latter requires aliment and exercise; the former, information and reflection. To afford these in proper abundance, therefore, and of a suitable nature, is an intellectual education. The moral faculties, again, demand a still different treatment. These being feelings, and consequently passive, must be quickened and drawn out into action, or it may be, blunted and repressed-or in plain language, good habits formed, and bad ones reformed. And as each of these processes implies external assistance and guidance, the necessity of a moral education is equally deducible. Education then divides itself into three great branches, physical, intellectual, and moral, each of a different kind, adapted to the different faculties of our nature.

From such a view of the question, therefore, it must be obvious to any mind of the least possible reflection, that it is extremely absurd

to imagine, that any harm can accrue to an individual from a proper cultivation of these powers and faculties. But nothing is too monstrous to gain credence with those who think it their interest to suppress the means of instruction among the poor; and to enlighten such persons, something more than abstract reasoning is necessary. An argumentum ad hominem, an appeal to some interested motive, throws great light upon the subject; and without being uncharitable, we fear this is the source of not a little of that new-born zeal which is just now displayed in the cause of popular education.

To the Christian, however, an argument of a different kind must be applied; and he cannot fail to perceive in the intellectual education of a community, an analogous process to that of atmospheric action upon the face of nature. The once rocky surface, by the lapse of time and the attrition of the atmosphere, becomes decomposed and pulverised into the genial and fertile soil; the dews and the rains of heaven fall upon it, and the good seed is cast abroad, bringing forth fruit more or less according to its depth and cultivation. And a moral and intellectual soil must also be spread over the ignorant and depraved masses of the people, before the seed of the word can be expected to take root and flourish and bring forth fruit.

To the Christian, therefore, another question is thus developed : What is meant by the religious education of the young? Churchmen, having all their questions stereotyped, say, it is indoctrinating them into the principles of the church as laid down in the liturgy and catechism; but it is not intended, at present, either to take this as a correct answer, or to refute it. A more logical as well as scriptural answer may be given, by assuming as data the definitions already laid down regarding the human character, and adding, that every spiritual influence affecting the mind and the character, is part of a religious education. And this influence may be communicated in two ways, each of which may be seen by an illustration. A child brought up under illiterate and mentally ignorant but pious parents, may become habituated into all the duties of Christianity, and thus be brought under the power of vital religion by a kind of practically deductive process; and another, born of godless parents, may have his mind enlightened in the knowledge of Christ by means of Sabbath-school instruction, and thus, also, become a practical Christian. Those different influences, however, derive their efficacy from the same source, and are simply the truths of revelation, blessed by the Spirit of God operating upon the heart and conscience. A religious education is, therefore, a unique thing, having for its object the immortal spirit, and as its instrument, the word of God. But almost an equally important question remains yet to be answered, What are those truths, the communicating of which forms a religious education? And the answer is, the essential doctrines of the Gospel, so plainly revealed, that he

that runneth may read them. Yet as there is no principle so sacred, no doctrine so holy, that may not be perverted to party ends and selfish purposes, so around these truths, in many cases, has been thrown a covering of error, gilded and polished it may be, but fatal error still; and to communicate even truth in this way, is simply the true way to communicate error.

In the late discussion that agitated the country regarding Sir James Graham's bill, and which called forth the pamphlets at the head of this article, it was not the teaching or the non-teaching of these doctrines in the abstract, that formed the subject of contention. It was not that government was about to establish schools in which a religious education, based on the Bible, shall be taught; but a religion taken from the Book of Common Prayer. And this was aggravated by the consideration of its being a compulsory part of the scheme, set on foot by secular men, and carried into operation by a dominant clergy. It was, in short, making the only part of the scheme a sine quá non, that, in courtesy to dissenters, ought to have been either a matter of forbearance, or no part of the scheme at all. But it is needless now to disturb the ashes of the dead. It was defeated and the question now before the public is, Are we or are we not to have a national education? If we are, what is to be the nature of it; and if not, what is to be done single-handed? Perhaps all might assent to the abstract proposition, that if a plan could be devised by which dissenters could co-operate with government in furnishing the ignorant millions of our countrymen with the means of daily instruction, it would be a desirable thing. This, however, seems impossible. Government will not forego its idea of a liturgical religion and clerical control, and dissenters will have none of them. But are the uneducated to perish for lack of knowledge in the mean time? The Wesleyans and Independents, with one united voice, have exclaimed, God forbid! Inspired by such feelings, our Wesleyan brethren have been the first to throw themselves in the breach, and the Congregational churches now gladly follow their example.

It is objected to us, that our exertions are merely of a denominational character, and have a sectarian object. But we repudiate the charge they are strictly national. We are establishing schools over the length and breadth of the land, to the very utmost of our power, to the very limit of our means, and upon the most enlightened views of education we can adopt. True, we intend to teach the children of our own people the principles we avow, but we shall not obtrude those principles upon the children of our neighbours as the terms of their admission to our schools. Let others do the same. Let all educate their own, and all will be educated. Let it not be thought, however, that we are churlish, and will give no ear to any suggestions regarding a better and more comprehensive course. Only show us our way, and

if we can we will follow in it. Meantime let us adopt the only remedy in our power, which, if it will not entirely cure, may, at least, arrest the progress of a most inveterate disease. Let us call to our aid the principle of association so potent for religious objects, and apply it to forward others of a kindred nature; nor let us forget that all national measures of any real value come not from governments, forsooth, but from the oppressed people helping themselves. Even Christianity arose and spread from the single-handed exertions of a few illiterate fishermen of Galilee, until it changed the aspect of the world. And such, it may also be added, is the way in which not only nations, but individuals prosper. Every one is too apt to look to his neighbour for help but, help yourself, says the proverb, and the gods will assist you.

During the late discussion of this subject, only one opinion was felt by all true dissenters regarding the rejection of such a bill as that of Sir James Graham's; but not a little diversity of opinion was then and is still expressed, regarding the abstract question of government interference with education at all. One party insist that dissenters cannot conscientiously receive any help at all from government; education, say they, being a religious matter. Another party think differently. Now, without presuming to arbitrate in the matter, it certainly would seem as if some little confusion of ideas originated the former opinion, considered at least as an abstract proposition. It is an assumed hypothesis to say that education is a religious thing. Education is a mixed thing, not only religious but social, not sacred merely, but secular. Render therefore unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's. It will be granted that all those branches of knowledge, and all those modes of applying them, that have for their object simply the health of the body and the improvement of the mind and habits, are of a secular kind. Such an education is calculated merely to make an individual in every way enjoy the greatest possible good in the present life, that his social and intellectual nature will admit. Being partly secular, therefore, it is but a truism to say it is not purely religious. Now anything that is not strictly religious, and in which the liberty of conscience is not concerned, or at least not intended, may be taken cognizance of by the state; for the state is a social institution, a compact, by which the greatest good ought to result to the greatest number. For example: no dissenter hesitates to attend the literary and philosophical classes of a state college, if subscription to articles of faith be not required, nor to graduate at the University of London, though upheld by parliamentary grants. And were a plan adopted by which every other branch of instruction could be given to the people, up to and except those spiritual lessons that pertain to a religious education, unfettered by religious tests, without the danger of peculiar views in religion being inculcated,-in short, good moral and mental

instruction, and that its pecuniary affairs should be levied and administered in the spirit of equal justice to all, it is somewhat difficult to see why it might not be a very desirable boon to the nation; as indeed most dissenters thought respecting the Irish schools established by government aid some twelve or thirteen years ago.

In those schools are to be seen, sitting on the same bench, learning the same lessons, under the same master, the children of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Catholics, promiscuously. They meet there on the ground of a common brotherhood in the same human family, to learn to sympathise with all mankind,-as neighbours, that they may know to do unto others as they would be done by; and as intelligent beings, that their minds may be cultivated by useful knowledge. But they have also a religious instruction, separately; and it is a separate department of education, as we have shown, however it may be the basis of certain others. The base of a statue is not the statue itself. A digest of morality was selected from the Scriptures, and formed into a manual, containing maxims for the regulation of conduct, in which no disputed doctrine was admitted. In short, these schools had all the apparatus of a mental and moral instruction of the most unsectarian character, and they have had the happiest results. Let this allusion to the Irish schools, however, not be misunderstood. It is merely given as an illustration, en passant, not by any means in the way of offering them as a model of a national scheme for England, but to show that one should pause before bringing a sweeping conclusion against every plan, simply because it originates with a government. And, in candour, it must be added, that some of the ablest and most liberal writers on education advocate the necessity of nationalising it. Among these, the opinions of such men as Lord Brougham, Lord Denman, Mr. Wyse, Mr. Simpson, Professor Pillans, and Mr. M'Culloch, are entitled to some consideration. Yet, alas for all speculating on such a theme, certain facts are available, taken from neighbouring nations, that sadly fail to substantiate this position. In truth, the subject of national education seems one of that numerous class, in which abstract reasoning upon a hypothesis may convince the most candid judgment of its correctness, and yet every fact taken from observation and experience, directly disprove the premises. It does seem strange why government aid to such an object as the instruction of a people, should have anything but a beneficial tendency; government, say the theorists, being an institution intended for the very purpose of benefiting society, and education a means to the same end. But this is simply another theory, at variance with fact. Whatever government be intended for speculatively, practically it is not always for the good of the people. It is often the bane and curse of the people; and it must, of course, depend upon the graduated position it holds between these two extremes, whether