ror, have depended, in teaching religion, on the school as an essential means of sustaining their influence and life.

"III. Adequate religious education can only be given in SCHOOLS WHICH ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF TUE CHURCH. The State and other schools sometimes inculcate religion; but this occurs only under specially favorable circumstances, and even then not often to the desired extent.

"1. One reason why a thorough religious training can only be given to the schools under ecclesiastical care is, because in none other can Christians choose the teacher, or determine the course of instruction. It is obvious that the character of schools depends altogether upon the matter taught, and the persons teaching.

"2. Even if religion were universally regarded as a proper subject for the school, the prevalent diversity of opinion, and sectarian jealousy, must prevent the adoption of any efficient system of religious instruction. These difficulties may be principally classed under two divisions; those which arise from the doctrinal diversities of evangelical churches, and those occasioned by infidelity and Romanism. It would be no easy matter to reconcile evangelical Christians to the adoption of a common platform of scriptural teaching. And even if this could be done, what rational hope would there be of an acquiescence in evangelical doctrine by the infidels of all classes, and the unvarying class of Romanists? Even the reading of the Bible in the public schools is becoming more and more difficult, not only on account of the Douay version but of the new Baptist version.

"IV. The two systems of parochial and of State schools may, and ought to, coexist. The one, under present circumstances, supplements the other.

"1. The friends of parochial schools desire the utmost efficiency to be given to the STATE SYSTEM.

"First, because there are thousands of children who cannot be otherwise reached. In many districts, the sparseness of population will not admit of more than one school; and in others, the question is, at least, a doubtful one. The State h s advantages under such circumstances which should be fairly acknowledged. It is far better that the children should be educated on some plan which brings them all together, and which is practical in common advantages, however small, than that the neighborhood should be left in ignorance, or be agitated by hopeless contention.

Secondly, because secular education, with the minimum of moral and religious instruction, and with other facilities for receiving the latter, is a blessing. Ignorance and debasement commonly go hand in hand. Mental darkness too often intercepts light to the moral faculties. The most hopeless of all communities are those where ignorance abounds, with its attendant ills. The Gospel is hindered in its power by coming in contact with minds incapable of appreciating truth, and of attending to its just conclusions. A great deal has been said, and said truly, of the danger of educating a people intellectually, without regard to their morals and religion. All such statements are strong pleas for Christian schools. But it does not necessarily follow that, in the absence of religion in schools, it would be better, in the condition of our country, to leave the people uneducated. Much religious instruction can be given to the people in other ways than in schools.

Thirdly. Another thing which reconciles many to sustain State education is that, in the present condition of public opinion, the common schools are the only ones for which State patronage can be secured; and, without the aid of the State, the general education of the people cannot be accomplished.

"2.

*

*

*

*

*

On the other hand, the friends of the State system have no reason to oppose PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS.

"First, because these schools do not owe their origin to hostility to the State system, but to views of Christian duty.Church schools are established for purposes which the State cannot accomplish. Whilst the latter aims only at qualifying its youth to be good citizens of the Commonwealth, the Church aims at preparing them both for the duties of this life and of the life to come. Secular education may, under certain circumstances, be good as far as it goes; but religious education goes farther, and is better.

*

"Secondly. The utmost extent to which the denominational system can be now carried will leave much ground that can only be occupied by the State. Parochial schools cannot rival or supersede the common schools. There is abundant room for all. At the present time, a large number of private, or select schools, exist within the limits of States which have adopted the common school system. In Scotland, the number of adventure schools,' as they are there called, exceeds the number of parochial schools. There is no interference, because all have enough to do. Now, if, in this country, the parochial schools should so far increase as to take the place of the thousands of private schools, no clashing be

tween the two systems would take place; and even if parochial schools were added to the number of private schools, the interference would not be for evil.

* *

*

"Thirdly. Denominational schools are not exclusive, and need not be offensively sectarian. Bigotry is commonly the result of ignorance. An educated Presbyterian, however strongly he may be attached to his own form of faith and worship, is commonly charitable towards those who differ from him.

"Fourthly. Another reason for the co-existence of the two kinds of schools is the health principle of competition. Monopolies are not only odious but dangerous. The granting of railroad privileges by the State to a mammoth company is nothing in comparison with the danger of allowing the State to control the entire work of education throughout the length and breadth of the land. A public school system might be made the engine of immense evil. It has the training of a nation at its command; it may dictate its reading and control its current and general opinions."

APPENDIX NO. 3.

THE STATE AND EDUCATION.

EXTENT TO WHICH THE STATE SHOULD SUPPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMPEL ATTENDANCE ON THEM.

Extract from a Pamphlet by Robert Vaughan, D. D., being a reprint of an article in the British Quarterly Review.

"To say that a government may consistently do its best to help a nation to grow rich, but that it must not be supposed to care a jot about the influence which this money-getting may have upon its habits of industry, its intelligence, or its tone of moral feeling, would be to make distinctions, the weakness of which becomes manifest the moment they are stated. The end of government and the end of society it has been said—and we think truly said—are one. The general interest is the ultimate design of both; and in what that interest consists it belongs to society itself to determine. By government, in every well-ordered state, we are to understand a power created by the states and dependent upon it. Government is the expedient of society, the instrument which society forms for itself, that it may thereby realise its proper end. Society is the master, government is the servant. Man was

not made for government, but government was made for man. The question, accordingly, about the province of government, resolves itself into a question about the best division of labor. Christianity we regard as precluded from being an affair of government by its nature and its express laws; but with regard to nearly all other things, the general interest is the great law and end to be observed, the matters which may be best done if left wholly to society being so left, and the matters which may be best done if assigned in whole or in part to the government being so assigned. Hence, if it can be made to appear, that popular education, like provision for the poor, would be best conducted by admitting a certain measure of agency from the government, it would be legitimate to admit that agency.

"That children should obey their parents is a principle, and that subjects should obey their sovereign is a principle, but

there is a still higher principle having respect to the highest parentage and the highest soverignty to which the former class of principles are subordinate. In like manner, it may be the duty of a government to become an educator to a certain extent, and there may be a wider view of the general interest, requiring that it should not become an educator beyond a certain point. In no respect are men betrayed into error on questions of this nature more commonly, than in their attempts to lay down immutable rules, to be applicable in their fullest extent, in all circumstances and all times."

Extract from Baines' "Strictures on the New Government Measure."

"Government education is in my judgment a mighty error in principle. It can only be defended by reasons which would equally call for the superintendence of the government over our literature, our journals and our pulpits, if not over the food, the clothing and the habitations at least, of all the humbler classes. If on any ground of public policy, government is to support and regulate our schools, the same ground would require that it should support and regulate the press which supplies the bulk of the people with their reading, and should furnish every house with its intellectual food."

Extracts from an article on "over Legislation," attributed to Herbert Spencer, Esq., author of Social Statics.

"If we define the primary state-duty as protecting each individual against others; then all the state action comes under the definition of protecting each individual against himself-against his own stupidity, his own idleness, his own improvidence, rashness, or other defect-his own incapacity for doing something or other which should be done. There is no questioning this classification; for manifestly all the obstacles that lie between a man's desires and the satisfaction of them, are either obstacles arising from other men's counter desires, or obstacles arising from inability in himself.

"Such of these counter desires as are just, have as much claim to satisfaction as his; and may not therefore be thwarted. Such of them as are unjust it is the state's duty to hold in check. The only other possible sphere for it, therefore, is saving the individual from the results of his own weakness, apathy, or foolishness-warding off the consequences of his nature; or, as we say-protecting him against himself."

"Something too, might be added upon the perturbing effects of that 'gross delusion' as Mr. Guizot calls it, 'a belief in the sovereign power of political machinery,' a delusion to which