and using words that suit our purpose as boldly as he does, an occasional lack of mature seasoning shows itself in here a warp, and there a seam, these, after all, are trivial considerations when compared with the great, sterling, standard merits for which we have given him credit; with the reform he may be said to have fairly introduced into our Indian annals; with his vast and various original contributions to American history at large, the romantic interest as well as the authentic value of a large part of these restorations, — his impartial, liberal, and manly spirit, the high moral and Christian tone which breathes through the whole of his writings, or even with that neverfailing animation and raciness in his style itself, which, wrought into such material, have filled these thick octavos with a life which fiction, with all its strangeness, aims at in vain. These are excellences of the first and finest order. They are body and soul enough for any historical composition. They will give to this work an enviable rank among its contemporaries, a lively and lasting interest in the memories of men.

B. B. T.

ART. II.-1. American Education, or Strictures on the Nature, Necessity, and Practicability of a System of National Education, suited to the United States. By Rev. BENJAMIN O. PEERS. With an Introductory Letter by FRANCIS L. HAWKS, D. D. New York: J. S. Taylor. 1838. 12mo. pp. 364.

2. Home Education. By ISAAC TAYLOR, Author of "Natural History of Enthusiasm," "Physical Theory of Another Life," etc. etc. New York. First American from second London Edition. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1838. 12mo. pp. 322.

DR. JOHNSON's crusty remark, that "Education is as well known, and has long been as well known, as ever it can be," does not seem to be a part of the creed of our age. Alike in the philosopher's closet and the legislative hall, in the radical's harangues and the despot's councils, a constant effort is making to devise a more thorough mode of Education, and to

render its blessings universal. Even the Russian Autocrat joins in the movement, and threatens to surpass, in wisdom and liberality, the rulers of some of our free States.

The two works at the head of this Article lay the subject of Education before us in all its length and breadth. It is the aim of the first to insist upon the necessity of educating all the people by means of common schools. The second concerns itself more with making education thorough, than universal; and seeks to set forth a higher plan of culture than can be pursued in public schools, or even in private schools; and to show that the human faculties may reach their best development under the family roof. Let us first see what Mr. Peers's views are, and then look at Mr. Taylor's book.

Mr. Peers has been quite conspicuous and efficient as a friend of education in the West. He has for many years been actively engaged as a teacher, and was, for a while, the head of Transylvania University. He has a right, therefore, to speak with something of the authority of experience. He might safely have trusted his book to make its own way by its intrinsic excellence, and the merits of his own name, without having it hawked into notice by one of those introductions, that generally only serve to awake suspicion that a book needs puffing to keep it from sinking. It is rather unfortunate, in the present case, that the Introductory Letter to a work on Education should be so hasty, and should not afford a better specimen of correct

grammar.

Mr. Peers argues, that an infant is as much entitled to the growth of his mind as he is to the growth of his body; and that the right of education ought to be ranked among the natural and unalienable rights of man. He maintains that, as a matter of course, every citizen has a claim upon society for such a cultivation as shall make him fully competent to discharge the duties which society requires of him. He considers these three questions:

"What kind and amount of education do the circumstances of society in the United States require all its members should receive?

"What, and how much is every child, irrespectively of the character or condition of its parents, entitled to claim, and government consequently bound to give?

"And what arrangements had best be made for the purpose

of complying with this requirement, of meeting these claims, and of discharging this obligation?"- p. 21.

After enlarging and insisting on the especial need of education, particularly moral and religious, in a republic like ours, he proceeds to state and illustrate what he deems to be the essential features in a system of national instruction suited to the United States:

"The essential features, in a system of national education suited to the United States, I consider to be seven; as expressed in the following propositions:

"1. A system of national education suited to the United States must aim, above all things, to impress a virtuous character upon the rising generation, and by means of the Bible as the instrument.

"2. In educating the intellectual faculties, it should be guided (with reference both to methods of practice, and the information to be communicated) by the laws of mind, and the future wants of the individual; and not, as is generally the case, by a too subservient and blind regard to usage.

"3. It must make such arrangements as will ensure the attendance at school of every child of the proper age.

"4. It must cause them to continue at school for a period of seven years.

"5. It must establish seminaries for the professional education of a sufficient number of teachers.

"6. It must provide means for their accommodation and comfortable support; and,

"7. For the supervision and general execution of its plans, it must appoint wise and energetic superintendents."— pp. 91, 92.

In discussing the second proposition, as to the kind of education suited to our circumstances, he remarks:

"To collect materials for giving a proper answer to the question proposed, (so far, at least, as relates to intellectual education, the immediate subject of this chapter,) I would station myself beside the stump' and the ballot-box, on the day of an election, and there learn the mental habits, and the information, requisite, to enable the farmers and mechanics, the principal voters of the nation, to distinguish the artful sophistry of the demagogue, from the manly logic of the friend of order and of the Constitution; and to choose, intelligently, between two candidates, whose views of national policy may be as opposite as day and night. I would then repair to our legislative halls; and hearing the

yeomanry of the country uttering their wishes, and opinions, through their representative organs, I would inquire as to the kind of education that will fit them for doing so with wisdom and with safety. Thence I would go into the business walks of life, to ascertain what knowledge of things, and principles, is needed to facilitate the task of getting honestly a comfortable livelihood. In the social circle, next, I would learn the mental qualifications necessary to make recreation rational, and profitable, as well as pleasant. Then, by the domestic fireside, I would determine the amount of moral science requisite for a wise discharge of the duties of the father, the son, the brother, the relation, the neighbor, and the friend. And lastly; beneath the shadow of the sacred desk, I would form my views of the attainments which are essential to fit a man for being happy in the faithful discharge of all his duties upon earth, and to prepare him for the purer blessedness of Heaven." pp. 99, 100.

Mr. Peers has much to say upon the need of religious culture in common schools, and in all that he says shows great good sense, and what seems to us a singular liberality in a clergyman of the Episcopal Church. He is entirely opposed to the introduction of any of the dogmas of controversial theology into schools. His view of the moral susceptibilities is cheering. He maintains "that children are religious beings; that is, they have consciences and affections, peculiarly susceptible of religious impressions; and the failure to treat them as such, can only be regarded as an act of criminal, not to say unpardonable, infidelity." Again, he remarks, "he (the instructor) should address himself to the tender sensibilities of childhood, by means of the mild and melting considerations with which the gospel abounds; and he should make close and specific appeals to their consciences, remembering that the sense of moral obligation in children is peculiarly delicate and acute. The meaning of the expressions 'ought' and 'ought not' is perfectly comprehended by them. There are, in reality, and to the unsophisticated mind of childhood, no simpler words in our language."

He does not try to set forth any specific plan for religious instruction in our schools, nor to decide the difficult and much vexed question, what use shall be made of the Bible. His own plan has been to give the first morning hour to religion, in form of reading the Scriptures, singing and prayer. He opposes the use of the Bible as a common reading book in schools, and

thinks there is great demand for a work "which shall amount to an exact, judicious, and specific answer to the question, which relates to the best method of employing the Bible in schools, and shall be fitted to serve as a help and guide to teachers in this respect." A work of this kind would, in his opinion, do more than anything else to remove all doubt about the practicability of using the Scriptures habitually in schools, without offending sectarian feelings. But there's the rub. Who shall prepare such a book? Who shall speak of the Bible in such way as not to offend sectarians on the one hand, nor on the other hand alarm the fears of a people ever jealous of sects and religionists? So long as Christians regard Christianity as based on controverted dogmas, so long as the people regard the Church as a selfish party, or band of parties, so long the Bible will be, if not absolutely kept out of common schools, used with much timidity and jealousy, and with little good effect. Even in the city that boasts to be the most moral and religious in the land, if not in the world, the assembled wisdom of her teachers and clergy could not even agree that religion should be taught in schools, much less devise a plan for teaching it.

We do actually believe, that the good yeomanry of our country would be more likely to agree upon a system of moral and religious instruction for schools, than our clergy would. They would discern, that the love of God and man, justice, truth, temperance, and even the eternal life, were principles acknowledged by the great mass of the church and people; and insisting upon these, they would leave controversialists to dispute at will about their isms and ologies. We remember being very much struck, last summer, with the effect produced upon the legislature of a State remarkably jealous of church influence, by a lecture upon the mode of moral and religious culture in the schools of Germany. The democratic yeomanry looked rather hard at the Rev. Lecturer, when he stated his topic. But when he proceeded to unfold what he meant by moral and religious culture, their faces changed from distrust and suspicion to interest and delight. All parties were charmed. The orthodox legislators were delighted to hear so much said of the importance of a right heart. The sturdiest democrats gave up their fears about mingling Church and State. If this be religion, said some of them, if religion consist in the development of our moral and spiritual capacities, if its main