exposition of doctrine. Do not multiply rules. "Love thy neighbor as thyself." This law is a whole moral code. Upon the subject of morals and deportment, we need no other school-rule than that.

Never use force or threats to compel an acknowledgment of wrong, or tó exact a promise of reform. If love can not produce these effects, it is worse than useless to use fear. Confessions and promises that are brought out by fear of punishment or hope of reward, are generally more or less false. Every lawyer is familiar with this fact, and every teacher ought to be. The use of such influences teaches deceit; it breeds a contempt of virtue and a hatred of those who preach virtue. Besides, this attempt to subdue a child by forcing a promise, is generally a contest between the lust of conquest on the part of the parent or teacher, and the pride of liberty on the part of the child. Within a few years the whole country has been shocked by the cruelty of a father who murdered his child in the insane attempt to subdue its spirit. In this way, it sometimes happens that a foolish parent trains up a child to be reckless, or cruel, or a villain.

The moral precepts of the teacher should be in "words fitly spoken." The manner, the time, and the place, every circumstance should be considered, in order that the word may have weight; the principal condition being always that it should be prompted by a sincere love for the pupil. Moral sayings, stated dictatorially and thrust upon the scholar, may do more harm than good. Such a manner creates a spirit of opposition which makes a real moral influence hopeless for that time. Some have a habit of making little moral lectures to the school at a certain hour. Generally, this effects little. It passes by like the wind. If made at the close of school, it is listened to with impatience. It reaches no farther than the ear, and becomes a subject of ridicule. Occasions will not be wanting if the teacher's heart is full of the desire to cultivate the morals of the school; and the word spoken from the heart, on real occasions, will go to the heart.

I may be wrong in opposing this formal and regular way of moral training. I hope that some who have tried it fairly will give us the result of the experiment. There is a method that was told by Mr. Cowdery, from which I would expect some good. A certain virtue, say filial respect, is spoken of in all the schools of the city on the same day. Questions are asked in such a way as to cause discussion at the homes of the children. Perhaps also, there may be an article in the newspaper that week. Thus the attention of the whole community is concentrated upon one question. I would like to know whether observation has shown that this method produces good results.

The singing of a hymn, and the prayer for God's blessing at the opening of school, are acts of worship. The influence of these things when done by a teacher who sincerely feels their meaning, is very good. It would be better for our people if such an influence could be felt in every school. Prayer for divine aid is right in itself. Therefore it is right to do it with the school; but unless the teacher can do it in earnest, it is a senseless mockery, offensive alike to God and man. It follows that this ought to be left to the judgment and conscience of every teacher.

"The teachings of Jesus Christ regarding human duty," should pervade all

instruction, and the book where these teachings are found, should be used in all schools. I advise teachers to use it so far as it conduces to this end. No just man, Jew, Infidel, or Christian, need take offense at such a use of the Scripture. The Bible is not a proper book to teach reading or spelling. Other books are better for these purposes, and such a use of this book is of no advantage to either religion or morals. How the Bible should be used in school, or whether it be used at all, are questions involving the best methods of instruction. Such questions should be left to the decision of the teacher. The particular details of teaching can not be well regulated by trustees. They can select proper teachers, and ought to exercise greater caution in this than has been usual. The examiners' certificate ought never to be taken as a sufficient evidence of moral character. These certificates, in most cases, mean only that the examiners know nothing against the person, and that somebody has certified the good character to them. Trustees ought to have positive evidence that every teacher is a suitable person to be entrusted with the training of children.

The teacher, when selected and in charge of the school, ought to be left to adopt his own methods. Every good teacher must be the final judge of what methods he can use to the best advantage. Some teachers can use one method better, some another. I believe that the reading of a short passage from the Bible every morning at the opening of school, is an excellent method, which can be made to do much for the morals of the school. A teacher who does not believe that this good can be done in this way, ought not to attempt it.

66

Again, the same teacher does not always use the same methods, for methods must vary to suit the varying circumstances. If the trustees were to forbid my using this method of moral culture, I would obey them. They are the powers that be." Such obedience does not involve my own freedom in religion, nor will it prevent me from employing other methods which may suffice for the object.

My fellow teachers, there may be circumstances when it is not wise to insist upon reading the Bible or opening the school with prayer, even when it is permitted, and you can do it with sincerity. Obey the authorities; and under them, pursue that course which will best promote the morals of your school. Such obedience and such yielding to circumstances, are not a denial of your faith, by any means. Do not hesitate on all proper occasions to express your convictions of truth and right, but avoid destroying your influence and injuring the school, for a thing that is not absolutely essential to its moral welfare.

This subject has produced a greater excitement than is due to its merits. This is owing to the conviction of many that the enemies of Bible reading are really enemies of the common schools, and that their object is to break down the whole system.

All friends of moral training should hold fast by the common schools. These schools are based upon the common brotherhood of man; and where they are the only schools in a community, all are brought into more kindly fraternal relations. It is a mistake to suppose the common schools are godless. They do avoid the error of teaching sectarianism instead of religion. There is as much of morality and pure religion, the religion of faith and charity, of

love to God and man, taught in the common schools of Ohio, as in the select or denominational schools. The common school teachers do not and ought not to feel obliged to teach religion and morals in a set, formal way, making a separate study of it. That way is all wrong. The moral training of a school should pervade the school work; quietly and unconsciously the moral influence should be felt in every part of the school and during every hour of the day. There should be earnest work and joyous play, but in all and through all should be the Divine Spirit of Love.

TRAINING TO ACTION.

Example and precept are only valuable when they lead to action. It is better to draw out actions than words. Every good deed which a person can be induced to, is a step towards the habit of doing good. Encourage acts of virtue by suggestion and judicious praise, as well as by example and precept. The good actions of the child are the only evidence that the moral training has taken effect. This is in accordance with the principles of education in other things. A scholar understands a principle when he applies it properly to the solution of a problem. If ye would know of the doctrine, ye must do the work. Children should be taught to act from good motives. Here, again, the work is to be done, not so much by instruction as by education; not so much by talking about motives as by appealing to good ones; not so much by criticising the bad as by awakening the good. It is a common error of teachers and parents to regard children as incapable of acting from noble motives; to appeal to what is mean or selfish in place of the purer and better nature. Some excellent thoughts on this subject were stated by Mr. Cowdery in a report which he made to the Association of Superintendents of Ohio, in December, 1868. It is possible to do the same deed from very different motives; but the purer the motive, the stronger the character. Bad motives, such as hatred and revenge, should never be used; but among good motives, some are lower and some higher. Human motives are generally mixed, and it should be our aim to make the best predominate.

The lowest are those which are selfish, and of these the lowest is fear. Fear of punishment is the last resort of the master, to be used only when no better motive can be aroused. This rarely happens. Only a base slave has no higher motive. Only an indifferent teacher governs much by fear. The hope of reward is still a selfish motive, but better than fear. The reward hoped for may be self-improvement, or pecuniary means, or the commendation of our fellows. The judicious teacher will use hope more than fear. I do not speak of emulation as a good motive. All that is good in it, seems to consist in the hope of reward.

Higher than any selfish motive is love, the desire to do good to others. The desire to benefit our immediate relations is a universal feeling; it is cultivated in every home from early infancy. The desire to be useful to the whole community is not so common; but it is more comprehensive, and, therefore, a higher motive. The love of country and the love of mankind are still higher, each being more comprehensive than the former. Each of these requires more maturity on the part of the scholar. Each is more elevating than the preceding, each tends more to make a hero, or, if need be, a martyr.

There is still another motive, higher, purer, more ennobling than any of these it is that mingled fear and desire,—the fear of displeasing Our Heavenly Father and the desire to please him,—which constitute love to God. Yet we are so made that, although love to God is the higher, and should be the controlling motive, it never conflicts with love to man, but is the surest foundation on which to build philanthropy. The second great law is like the first, and rests safely upon it.

Man is so organized that character is built up and strengthened by loving; and the higher the object of love, the more is the moral character raised. We grow to be more like that which we love. The object of love must be a person whom we can serve, for whom we can make some sacrifice of self. An abstract principle may be recognized intellectually as correct, but it is no motive for action unless it suggests some person to love. "Do right because it is right" sounds prettily, but means nothing. It is a maxim as devoid of moral motive as it is of logical reason. Rather say, do right for your father's sake, or your country's sake, and, above all, for God's sake.

I have tried to make an investigation of this subject solely from the educational view, to consider it only in the light of science. If it has religious aspects, this is because they necessarily grow out of the nature of the premises. In describing the character of the founder of Christianity, I have used the words of a learned Jewish Rabbi.

The teachers of Ohio place Christ's teachings as the foundation of moral culture. He is the best example of all that is good in human life. He teaches that the first law is love to God. This is the foundation of love to man. Morals have no other foundation than these two laws; and every child that is to be morally trained, should have a heart convinced of the divine truth of these precepts.

DISCUSSION OF PRESIDENT TAPPAN'S REPORT.

S. G. WILLIAMS, Principal of the Cleveland Central High School, thus opened the discussion:

While I feel doubly obliged by the honor which the Executive Committee has done me, an utter stranger to the Ohio Association, in assigning me to open a discussion upon such a subject, and following such a man, I can not but feel a deep embarrassment at the same time. The very ability, thoroughness, and philosophical calmness with which the whole subject has been treated, leaves but little to those who shall follow in the discussion, except, with more or less of weakness, to point with approbation to some of the points that have been so ably raised by the person to whose paper we have just listened. I certainly yield in the regard I pay to moral education, to no one. We have had enough of repetitions of that maxim that "Knowledge is power;" meaning, I suppose, that intellectual culture is power. To be sure, it may be a power, but as to whether it shall be baleful or beneficial, depends entirely upon the direction given to the affections. I suppose that the young man who a few years ago made so much noise in New York, by signing the names of his friends to paper, and who a few weeks since justified the action of the Governor in being inexorable to all appeals for his pardon, by raising another flurry in Wall street, had received an excellent intellectual education. His family was able to give him such

an education, and doubtless they did not neglect it. The use he made of his intellectual power showed the sad defect, the sad oversight in his education. His moral training had been neglected. This obtuseness of his moral nature blasted his whole life. I think, therefore, I shall be in no great danger of making too much of moral training, though it has been discussed in all Teachers' Associations from the first.

This matter of the example of the teacher can not be too much insisted upon. There are many teachers whose precepts are all right, who think they are doing an excellent thing for the moral training of their pupils, but who, unconsciously, do not set those examples of thorough honesty, thorough, unflinching regard for truth, which are so influential with children. I have known and marked many instances of this kind amongst my own acquaintances-men who intended everything right, and yet who, from some weakness of moral nature, seemed to be unable to stick to a word once spoken, belying their own practice, and consequently causing their pupils to set a lower regard on truth and honesty than they otherwise would have done. I think that much of this is unconscious. It is exceedingly injurious, and, generally,

teachers are not aware of what they are doing.

But, after all, we must remember that this matter of moral education is an education, and that, as we have been exploding for many years that idea that a person's reason could be cultivated by cramming the memory, so we must set aside the idea that the moral nature can be cultivated in any other way than by the practice of morals; not simply by the teacher, but by seeing that the pupil himself has constant opportunities of bringing his conduct to the comparison of an unflinching standard of morality. I set a higher value, I must say, upon that moral training which comes as a part and parcel and as the very soul of the school government, than I do on any that can be given in any other way.

Had I felt myself called upon to criticise that very able and minutely marked out paper of this morning, I think that I should have criticised it in this regard, that it would seem to imply that the moral training of the pupil was a something that could be done by daily or tri-weekly lessons given, in which he takes it as he takes grammar, or possibly as he might take ipecac. I think that has been tried in other countries, and I very much doubt whether the success that has attended the experiment, has been such as to justify us in inserting it as an established part in our curriculums for our schools. I say this with very great diffidence, because I am unable to say what success has followed such a deliberate training in daily lessons given to pupils at such times, upon such topics. But I should think that a very much higher degree of good would be done by that which should be a constant training of the pupil, and not a constant cramming of his memory with moral precepts which, as has been very well said, would be likely to make very little impression upon him, less on account of the regularity in which they are attempted to be produced. In this matter of moral training as a part of the system of school government, the bringing of the pupil's conduct to the test of the standard of right, the constant reference of his conduct to that standard, kindly done by the teacher, (for all such things should be kindly done,) I think will be found, in time, to produce the most beneficial influences upon him. A great code of rules is simply a set of arrangements made to test a boy's ingenuity in getting around them; but when we bring a pupil face to face with the standard of right, there is something in every boy and every girl which will respond to that appeal. He feels that, although this may not be written down in a set code of rules, there is something about it which stamps it as wrong, or marks it as right, to him.

But still further it seems to me that in order to secure a thorough training of young people in this respect, they should be taught to exercise self-watchfulness. I have a very great regard for the self-reporting system, if properly used. It may be