XIII.-RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TRAINING.

Religion in education.-Brother Azarias: Religion is sacred, and because it is so sacred a thing it should not be excluded from the schoolroom. It is not a garment to be donned or doffed at will. It is not something to be folded away carefully as being too precious for daily use. It is rather something to be so woven into the warp and woof of thought and conduct and character, into one's very life, that it becomes a second nature and the guiding principle of all one's actions. Can this be effected by banishing religion from the schoolrcom? Make religion cease to be one with the child's thoughts and words and acts— one with his very nature-at a time when the child's inquisitiveness and intellectual activity are at their highest pitch; cause the child to dispense with all consciousness of the Divine Source of light and truth in his thinking; eliminate from your text-books in history, in literature, in philosophy, the conception of God's providence, of His ways and workings, and you place the child on the way to forget, or ignore, or mayhap deny that there is such a being as God and that His providence is a reality. The child is frequently more logical than the man. If the thought of God, the sense of God's intimate presence everywhere, the holy name of Jesus be eliminated from the child's consciousness and be forbidden his tongue to utter with reverence in prayer during school hours, why may not these things be eliminated outside of school hours? Why may they not be eliminated altogether? So may the child reason; so has the child reasoned; and therefore does the church seek to impress upon it indelibly the sacred truths of religion in order that they may be to it an ever-present reality. Not that religion can be imparted as a knowledge of history or grammar is taught. The repetition of the catechism or the reading of the gospel is not religion. Religion is something more subtle, more intimate, more all-pervading. It speaks to head and heart. It is an ever-living presence in the schoolroom. It is reflected from the pages of one's reading books. It is nourished by the prayers with which one's daily exercises are opened and closed. It controls the affections; it keeps watch over the imagination; it permits to the mind only useful and holy and innocent thoughts; it enables the soul to resist temptation; it guides the conscience; it inspires a horror for sin and a love for virtue. The religion that could be cast off with times and seasons were no religion. True religion may be likened to the ethereal substance that occupies interstellar space. This subs tance permeates all bodies. There is no matter so compact that it does not enter, and between the atoms of which it does not circulate. Even so should it be with religion. It should form an essential portion of our life. It should be the very atmosphere of our breathing. It should be the soul of our very action. We should live under its influence, act out its precepts, think and speak according to its laws as unconsciously as we breathe. It should be so intimate a portion of ourselves that we could not, even if we would, ever get rid thereof. This is religion as the church understands religion. Therefore does the church foster the religious spirit in every soul confided to her, at all times, under all circumstances, without rest, without break, from the cradle to the grave. Place yourself, at this point of view, and say, if believing all this, child of yours should receive any other than a religious education.

How piety can not and can be taught.-Carlyle: Piety to God, the nobleness that inspires a human soul to struggle heavenward, can not be "taught" by the most exquisite catechisms or the most industrious preachings and drillings. No; alas, no. Only by far other methods, chiefly by silent, continual example, silently waiting for the favorable mood and moment, and aided then by a kind of miracle, well enough named "the grace of God," can that sacred contagion pass from soul into soul. How much beyond whole libraries of orthodox theology is, sometimes, the mute action, the unconscious look of a father, of a mother, who had in them "devoutness, pious nobleness!" in whom the young soul, not unobservant though not consciously observing, came at length to recognize it, to read it in this irrefragable manner-a seed planted thenceforth in the center of his holiest affections forevermore.

Can morality be taught in our public schools apart from religion and theology?— Nicholas Paine Gilman: The great facts and the main laws of the moral life are obvious to all mature men and women; certainly they are not dependent, for their clearness and their binding force, upon any notions as to the origin either of the universe, of mankind, or of the perception itself of these facts and laws. The facts of astronomy which affect men's daily life-such as the so-called rising and setting of the sun, the phases of the moon, and the phenomena of the ocean

tide, for instance-are plain to every one; the explanation of them given by the astronomer to the farmer and sailor, whether correct or not, will not essentially change the arts of agriculture and navigation. So the common practical duties of human beings have long been familiar. Each new generation must learn them afresh, indeed, but it learns every day morality as an art, not as a science. The difficulty lies in the practice, not in the theory. Philosophers may dispute as to the exact reason why a man loves or should love, his mother; but the duty of loving one's mother is not a question considered open to discussion in common life. The same may be said of the other obligations which make up the substance of their duty for the great mass of mankind, in all but exceptional times and situations.

When, then, we have in mind as a subject for public school instruction, not the science of ethics, not the speculations of moral philosophers, but the orderly presentation of the common facts and laws of the moral life which no one in his senses disputes, we perceive how the religious or theological difficulty at once disappears, to a large degree. There is possible a theistic explanation of the moral law; there is possible an atheistic explanation; but there is a third course open here to the common-school teacher-to attempt no such final explanation at all. It is not necessary for him to teach that morality rests upon religion as its ultimate foundation; it is just as unnecessary for him to teach that religion, on the contrary, reposes upon morality as its basis. Let the relation of religion and morality be as it may be; the teacher is not called upon to decide an issue of this magnitude. He can teach the duties of ordinary life, showing their reasonableness and their interdependence in a consecutive, orderly manner, without appealing to religion; he can use the plain and usual consequences of actions, good or bad, as reasons for morality, without being open to a just accusation of irreligion. These consequences, as he should teach them, are admitted by all. *

*

*

Such a limitation bars out all matters of theological controversy. The sectarian difficulty and the religious difficulty in moral education disappear when we keep to conduct and its common laws, and stop short of theological or philosophical explanations why right is right or wrong is wrong.

General method of moral instruction in public schools.-Nicholas Paine Gilman: The one principle to keep firmly in mind is to avoid didacticism ("preaching") as much as possible, and to hold fast to actual life as children already know it, or may be led to comprehend it. Concrete instances of right-doing or wrongdoing, happening in the schoolroom itself, or just outside, within the immediate knowledge of the boys and girls, afford the best starting point for talks about the moral points involved. It will be easy to bring the children's minds, through a consideration of actual examples, to recognize in some degree the general principles involved. The same caution needs to be urged here as in the case of other general notions, against haste and consequent disregard of the immaturity of the childish mind. But if the teacher will shun formality and generality, and keep mainly to the particular and the concrete, he will find that few subjects interest children more than these questions of right and wrong in common conduct. These men-and-women-to-be find people the most attractive matter, just as they will find them later in life. Man is not only the "proper," but also the most engaging "study of mankind," large or small. Conduct is to children, who have not yet entered upon the great activities of business, art, or science, much more than "three-fourths of life," and the lines of it on which they are beginners will continue unbroken through all their years. Elaborate casuistry, hairsplitting about imaginary situations, anything and everything in the line of pure ethical theory, should be utterly tabooed in the school room. But with these precautions observed, and under the guidance of a teacher of well developed moral sense, boys and girls between 8 and 14 years of age (in the grammar schools, where moral education has its most fruitful field) will reason about points of ethical practice with interest, and often with a freshness and an acuteness that are surprising. If this be not so, then these children in school differ very much from these same children out of school.

If the course of study is, anywhere, so full or crowded as not to allow time for the occasional talks (one or two a week) about conduct, which I should advise as the best method, then that course should be shortened by the omission of some branch of much less useful knowledge sure to be found in it. I would avoid set times for these conversations; in them, question and answer should play a large part; the more easily (if not very frequently) the teacher "drops into one of them for a few vivacious minutes, the better. Some incident of the schoolroom life that has just occurred, or some matter in the lesson in read

ing or history may well interrupt the routine of the ordinary recitation, as the teacher asks the opinions of the class or of the school on the moral point in question, incites them to think more carefully about it, and indicates the conclusion to which long experience has brought the world the starting point, at least, for the majority of these ethical talks, for, like every other social institution, it has its moral law which must be observed by all its members in order to attain its end. The plainly visible chief function of the public school is to impart the elements of knowledge. To this end there must be full obedience to the natural authority, the teacher; the prescribed conditions of quiet, order, and studiousness must be observed by the pupils. Punctuality in attendance and readiness for all the exercises; truthfulness in regard to absence from school, tardiness, or any other failures to comply the regular order; honorable conduct with respect to methods of passing examinations; polite treatment of the other scholars; attention and courtesy to the teacher, such are some of the moral necessities of the schoolroom to be met by the scholars.

*

*

*

The pupils have no duties which should not be met by an equal faithfulness to his duties on the part of the teacher, who should not be there teaching unless interested in his work, qualified for it, and industrious in improving his practice of it. He must be just and impartial in his treatment of the scholars; he must, having the authority, exhibit the virtues of a ruler. Teaching politeness and honor, the instructor should be an honorable gentleman. The teacher has no direct influence over the pupil except in the school hours, and his earnest efforts may be rendered almost useless by the indifference, or the hostility even, of parents. But none the less must he strive to connect the morality of the schoolroom, which he can enforce, with the morality of life outside, as resting on the same general principles of reason. While the first rudiments of common sense will keep him from speaking of any vice, such as lying or stealing or drunkenness, in such a way as to proclaim his knowledge that it prevails in any scholar's home, he is still free to enlarge upon the manifold evil consequences of it. Thus his word may help somewhat to keep children pure in the midst of a bad home atmosphere, which he is otherwise powerless to change.

"Words"-this will usually be easy for the teacher to give in attempting moral education; but nowhere else does word amount to so little compared with example. If the word is not reënforced by the example, its influence will be small.

Practice fortified by theory.-George P. Brown, chairman committee of National Council of Education: It is probably evident to all that the writer believes in inculcating morality by practicing it rather than by theorizing about it. But the time comes in the education of the child when the doctrine that has guided the teacher in fixing dominant ideas in the mind of his pupil shall be made known to the pupil. Although, as in many other matters, the theory of morals may well be left until the pupil is well on his way, in the practice of morality this does not preclude the formulating of moral principles and laws which are exemplified in conduct whenever the child is prepared to recognize them in this form, and the organization of these into a system of ethics at a later period would be the culminating act of an ideal method of educating the will. A failure to reënforce the practice of right-doing by a rational theory of one's relations and consequent obligations would be to omit the most effective defense against the ever-recurring attacks of passion and sense.

Moral habits induced by school work.-State Superintendent Richard Edwards, of Illinois: The schools must develop moral power. In this world there is just one thing that has absolute worth, and that thing is character in men and women. These surroundings of ours which we so much value are after all only means to a loftier end. They have worth, these outward things, because they contribute to the good of man; otherwise they are without value. * *

*

What is this child's aim in going through an arithmetical process? What is he seeking for, when, for example, he is attempting to cast the interest on a note or to add up a long column of numbers? He is seeking to know the truth. He is not inquiring what somebody would like. He is not seeking to find an answer that will please a sect, or a party, or advance his own pecuniary interests. What he is seeking is the absolute truth. If he is casting the interest on a note, he desires to know what absolute justice requires to be done. If he is adding up a column of figures he is yearning to ascertain the precise and actual amount which they represent. In the study of history he is striving to ascertain what events have actually occurred, not what someone would like to make someone else believe has occurred. In short, the purpose of all school investigation is

to find the truth. Is not this a good motive? Is not the habit engendered by this work a wholesome habit? Suppose the same motive should govern the ac tions of all adults. Suppose that every editorial in a newspaper, every speech delivered from the stump, every sermon delivered from the pulpit, should be animated by the same desire. Would it not be something of an improvement upon the existing order of things?

The crowning purpose of education.-George P. Brown, chairman of committee, National Council of Education: The crowning purpose of education is to make the will follow the lead of conviction in all matters involving the idea of duty. The moral will is the significance, so to speak, of all the other activities of the mind. Institutional life is the moral will as it has realized itself. The ethical ideal is actualized in human society to the extent that it is common to the particular members. The principle of conduct in the ethical world is what is known as the moral law. This law is the universal conviction that every act of each particular member of the ethical whole should be such that when universal, that is, becomes the act of all, it will return upon the doer to bless and not to curse him. In this way the institutional world becomes a ministration of grace, each citizen receiving a return for every good deed, the good increased a thousand fold.

Religious instruction in the schools of Ontario.-Hon. George W. Ross, minister of education: Every school is required to be opened by the reading of Scripture and by prayer, and closed with prayer. In the Roman Catholic separate schools the religious exercises are subject to the direction of the trustees. No pupil is required to attend upon the religious exercises of the public school whose par els or guardians notify the teacher of their desire that he should absent himself. Provision is made for religious instruction by arrangement with the trustees of any denomination at such hours as may be agreed upon.

Reform the home first.-Popular Science Monthly: If the clergy, instead of mak ing futile demands for the teaching of theological dogmas in the schools, would try to rouse the minds of their adherents and followers to a sense of their per sonal responsibility for their childrens' characters, they might accomplish a more useful work. This is something which they should preach in season and out of season; and if they would do so with the earnestness which the occasion demands, the effect might in a few years be seen in the altered moral tone of a portion of the public-school teachers themselves; and thus, concurrently with the elevation of the home, we should have a notable improvement in the work of moral education as carried on in the schools. Reform the home, and the whole face of society will be reformed.

Catholic views on the right of the state to educate.--Declaration of principles by Cardinal Manning (English): 1. The children of a Christian people have a right by divine law to a Christian education. 2. Christian parents have a twofold right and duty, both natural and supernatural, to guard this inheritance of their children. 3. Christian children are in no sense the children of a state that has no religion. 4. Their teaching and training or formation as Christians is of higher moment than all secular instruction and may not be postponed to it or risked to obtain it. 5. In the selection of teachers by whom their children shall be instructed Christian parents have a right and a duty which excludes all other human authority. 6. To deprive the poor of this right and liberty, which is claimed by and yielded to the rich, is a flagrant injustice.

* * *

*

*

These also from Cardinal Manning: State education is the worst form of edu cation, fatal to the independence of national conscience, energy, and character. You can force us to pay your rate, but you can not rob our children of their religion. * [The] moral unity of a people drilled by state education and state pedagogues and state policy is spectral and lifeless. *** To compel the parents of a Christian people to send their children to schools where no religion is taught, as in America, or where the Bible is only read, without interpretation, or without its true interpretation, or, still worse, with erroneous interpretation, and by interpreters untrained and incompetent to interpret, is a violation both of natural and political justice. It is an outrage on the nat ural rights of parents and on the religious conscience of a Christian people. The common-school system in America is a case in point.

Rev. Thomas Bouquillon, professor of moral theology, Catholic University of America: Civil authority has the right to use all legitimate temporal means it

1Quoted by John A. Mooney in the Educational Review, as are Dr. Becker and Hon. E. F.

Dunne, further on.

2 Education: To Whom Does it Belong? p. 12.

judges necessary for the attainment of the temporal common welfare, which is the end of civil society. Now, among the most necessary means for the attainment of the temporal welfare of the commonwealth is the diffusion of human knowledge. Therefore, civil authority has the right to use the means necessary for the diffusion of such knowledge, that is to say, to teach it, or rather to have it taught by capable agents.

John A. Mooney, in the Educational Review, in reply to the foregoing syllogism of Dr. Bouquillon: All that is necessary to the welfare of the State is not within its competence. If it were otherwise, then the State could claim a right to teach religion, for religion is necessary to the welfare of the State. There are legitimate and temporal means necessary for the temporal common welfare, and not within the State's right. The procreation of children, an able critic safely claims, is necessary for the welfare of the State, and a means both legitimate and temporal. Still no one will concede that the State may compel all the citizens to procreate children. Logically the state, in whose behalf the reverend doctor argues, is the socialistic state. The diffusion of human knowledge which he concedes to the State is, as we have seen, that large diffusion possible within the boundless limits of the three R's. One might as reasonably deny that this "education" is sufficient as to claim that it is necessary. And by what authority, some one will ask, does he determine that "the right to use the means necessary for the diffusion of human knowledge" is to be understood as "the right to teach it, or to have it taught?" Why shall not we define the "means necessary for the diffusion of human knowledge" as a something more or less than teaching?" The professor's conclusion agrees with his own views. It is, however, not a logical conclusion, but an assumption added to the various assumptions made in his premises. His critics have called Dr. Bouquillon's attention to these and to other defects in his method of reasoning. Having based himself on premises not true, and on a conclusion doubly illegitimate, was he safe in "affirming that the larger number of theologians admit that the State has the right to educate?" With perfect safety it may be affirmed that if the larger number do admit such a right, most certainly they base their admission on some more flawless syllogism. As a matter of fact, no theologian to whom the reverend doctor has appealed admits the right of the State to educate.

Right Rev. Thomas A. Becker, D. D., Bishop of Savannah: We do not doubt that the time is fast approaching when the State will confine herself to her legitimate duties, of the which there are enough, and those sufficiently onerous, without undertaking to supply us with a secular instruction which we do not want in any other manner than as a handmaid to religion, and with which, so accompanied, no government can furnish us. Were it even possible, such a power is too liable to abuse to be left in any governmental hands; and finally, upon parents, as such, devolves the responsibility for the souls of their offspring, and we dare not, even if we could, shift it from where the Almighty has placed it. Hon. E. F. Dunne (in an address at the Catholic Congress, Baltimore, 1889): Morality is the only foundation of order. Therefore the State not only may but must assist in the production of morality. It must do it or die, for without morality order is impossible, and without order the State can not live. There can be no morality without religion. Therefore the State which wars upon religion undermines its own foundation-precipitates its own destruction. Moral culture is of more importance to the State than any other; instruction which does not give it is not education. Therefore the State should encourage education full and complete. To aid in education the State may endow schools and assist teachers, but itself to teach? No! That is beyond its charter, beyond its rights, beyond its power.

Compulsory teaching is of inferior quality.-The School Journal: That teacher who is throwing out the strongest moral influences in her school is the least conscious of it. It is unconscious radiation, as flowers fill the air with fragrance. There is a certain benefit to a school, from carrying out a programme of morals-that is, a programme that has certain times and occasions and ways laid down for the imparting of moral instruction. But like all compulsory teaching it is of inferior quality compared with that which flows out naturally from every pore of the teacher's soul.

Not new.-H. C. Hardon, master Shurtleef School (Boston): That old lie that there is no religion in the schools.