DEFENCE
OF
DENOMINATIONAL EDUCATION,
BY
R. C. SMITH,
OF
OgleWiox^e University, Gr&.
VKDREULL UWIOW POWER FRK8S,
MILLEDOEVILLE, GA<,
1854.
ERRATTA.
On page 10th, 16th line, read "temporal, are constantly*1
" 18th, last paragraph 1st line, "during their course"
" 19th last paragraph 1st line, "spirituality and of"
" 21st, last line, "if there is any one thing"
" 23d, 2d line, "established by the article from"
23d, 3d line from the bottom, "State, than in those"
" 25th, Note at the bottom, "1854"
" 26th, 11th line from bottom, "only Palinurus of"
" 27th, 33d line ("if such there be,")
" 30th, 26th line, "candidate for the sacred ministry,"
" 32d, 14th line, "become the inheritors of acorn potent"
DENOMINATIONAL EDUCATION.
The following article was written in the year 1849, and
was designed originally for the pages of the Southern Pres¬
byterian Review. To one of the Editors of that Review it
was forwarded witih the following note:
Milledgeville, Sept., 1849.
Dear Sir:
I herewith send you an article on the subject of Denoo*-
inational Education, which I wish you to examine, and if
you deem it worthy of publication, you will please give it a
•place in the next number ol your Review.
R. €. SMITH.
To this note the following reply was returned in the suc¬
ceeding month of the same year. After having assigned as
a reason why the article could not appear in the Review, the
opposition of some of his co-editors to the further discussion
of Denominational Education.in their pages, my correspon¬
dent says, "I have already done all I can in this particular
connection for the side you advocate in obtaining its first ad¬
mission into our columns. My own sympathies are there¬
fore with you, though I do not think it practicable now to
obtain the insertion of your piece in the Review. This de¬
cision is made entirely independent of the merits of your
piece, or the claims of Oglethorpe to the patronage of the
Church. The piece itself is able and entirely creditable to
you as a writer and Professor. I hope you will publish it
elsewhere, and if possible in pamphlet form. On almost
any other subject we should have been glad to receive an
article from your pen," &c.
Feeling thus assured that the controlling power of the
Review was averse to the further discussion of the subject of
Denominational Education, and believing that his correspon¬
dent of the editorship had over estimated the merits of the
piece presented by himself and besides, having no disposi¬
tion to appear in print upon any subjeot, the author was un¬
willing to urge his claims to a public hearing, or to utter a
word ofcomplaint against the Reviewers for the rejection of his
article. But to his astonishment he finds that the silence of
the Review was only temporary, and that too upon one side.
4
In the January No. of the Review, we find a letter address¬
ed to Gov Manning of South Carolina, said to be from one of
the Editors, in which he sanctions and re-affirms all that the
Review had said on the subject of Denominational Educa¬
tion four years before. He even claims for the article of
1849, a "most, complete refutation of the manifold assumptions on
which the theory of Church Education proceeds. It sets the ques¬
tion at rest.''''
Under these circumstances the author of the fol¬
lowing essay has been called upon by his friends, and by
the fierceness with which this enterprise of the Church has
been assailed, to lay his offering, however imperfect, upon?
the public altar, and to inform the readers of the Southern*
Presbyterian Review, in what manner the subject of Denom¬
inational Education has been "set at rest" in the columns of
that periodical.
Ours is emphatically a land of liberty. Men here must
be free to act, free to think, free to speak. No system either
of State or Church policy or enterprise can be so satisfacto¬
rily settled, as to exempt it fr^m public expressions of dis¬
approbation. The mind bold and daring, roust now ap¬
proach all possible positions unawed by authority, and some¬
times, perhaps, but too little influenced by the force of oppo¬
sing argument. This is said to be a temptation to which
strong and original thinkers are peculiarly exposed. B»utas
-these are mental contests, and therefore more concealed in
their results, it is not impossible but that the last intellectu¬
al giant who has wielded his mental sabre with dextenty
and power, even though unsuccessfully, should raise the
song of triumph, and that many, either through sympathy or
the want of more correct information, should be ready to
hail him as the true and redoubtable victor.
It may therefore be important frequently to view the
grounds which each party has claimed and to examine how
far they have been successful in the contest.
The Presbyterian Church in this country, having long
mourned over the want of a more thorough Christian Educa¬
tion for the children and youth, in her General Assembly of
1846, appointed a Board of Education, whose duty it was to
-report from time to time to the Assembly. This Board
through their Committee reported to the'Assembly of 1847,
a number of resolutions, all of which were adopted unani¬
mously, the third of which read as follows; "Resolved, That
this Assembly do hereby earnestly call upon all the Synods and
Presbyteries under their care, to take the subject of christian
education under consideration and to devise and execute
whatever measures they may deem most appropriate for
•securing the establishment of Parochial and Presbyterian
■Schools in our bounds."
The adoption of these resolutions was followed by an ad¬
dress before the Assembly from the Rev. Dr. Hodge of
Princeton. This address advocated both the necessity and
.propriety of Denominational Education. The positions taken
by the author ot this address were fortified by what wero
then regarded strong arguments—the substance of which wc
should never lose sight of when called upon to judge of the
■merits of Denominational Education.
1, In reference to the church and State plan, he showed that
the system in our country is impracticable. That "in no
State of our Union is there such uniformity of opinion, as to
render the union of the Church and Slate in the work of re¬
ligious instruction eitherexpedient or possible."
2. In reference to the independent plan of Church and
State, he showed by reference tosomeoftheN. England States
that it "has been found impracticable to secure a general
and efficient religious Education by means of schools whose
-character was determined by the mixed community in which
they are placed and that this impossibility of pleasing
all has led to the general determination to do nothing—to
banish religion almost entirely from the Public Schools."
3. In reference to the compromise plan, i. e., for the State
to teach or allow to be taught in the Public Schools those
doctrines of religion on which all denominations agree, and
to leave what are called sectarian differences to be other¬
wise provided for. This plan Dr. H. plainly shewed must
result in a "rejection of positive doctrines, and that it is
practically, as far as it goes, the inculcation of very superfi¬
cial views and even of infidelity itself."
4. In reference to the secular plan, Dr. H. shewed that
■"notwithstanding its advantages, the system is exposed to
serious objections. 1, That it assumes practically the
atheistic theory of the Universe, and is therefore not what it
appears or purports to be, viz, something negative and
•harmless. 2, That as,,in multitudes of cases the education
afforded in the Public Schools is all the child does or can
obtain, and that when this is merely secular, he must grow
4jp without any religious knowledge." 3, That this plan of
banishing religion f rom Public Schools is contrary to the ex¬
perience and practice of all ages and nations. 4, That "it is
■most obviously unscriptural—that God has required his peo¬
ple to teach their children his word—that such a course is a
practical denial that the Bible should occupy that place in
the formation of the character of the people which Goe? has-
assigned. 5, That the plan which forbids the introduc¬
tion ofReligion into our public Schools is an unauthorized
encroachment on the religious rights of the people."
Under these circumstances the speaker asked "what then
ought to he attempted?" In answer to this question he said~
'fThe Church must undertake the work of education/' And
in giving this answer it appears be expressed the unanimous-
conviction of lire Assembly. The resolutions referred to above
were sent down to the Presbyteries, discussed with
great freedom, and with great unanimity approved.
Since the year 1847, the Board of Education have submit¬
ted to the Assembly two other reports in reference to which-
it has been said by one in whose judgement the Church has
reposed more than ordinar}r confidence:" "The reasoni
the evidence, and the urgency of these reports, we regard
as irresistible." So also thought the members of the Assem¬
blies to whom they were made, and consequently they re¬
ceived them with great cordiality.
But notwithstanding all ibis, it has been said that, "The-
connection ot the Church of God with the general education
of the people, is a subject in regard to which more has been
said and felt than thought.*"
Now the foregoing considerations have-been introduc¬
ed at the opening of this essay in order that our rea¬
ders may see that the enterprise of Denomination¬
al Kducation has not been undertaken rashly by the
Presbyterian Church. If they have spoken freely and
fully, and if they have felt continuously and intenselyr
it has been because they have viewed the subject as—
"At all limes and every where of immense importance."
The controversy upon the subject of Denominational Ed¬
ucation in this country, is not mainlv between the believer
and the unbeliever, but between enlightened christians who
profess to hold the will of God as authoritative in all mat¬
ters of moral disputation. Our first enquiry therelore,
should be what is the Divine will in reference to this matter?
Can it be obtained clearly from the language of Holy
Writ?
Upon this point we suppose that both parties have ex¬
pressed themselves too confidently. In the Southern Pres¬
byterian Review, vol. 2d, No. 4, we find Parochial Schools-
represented as "enforced by Divine authority." And in the
same work, vol. 3, No. 1st, we find it argued that the line of
duty, both for the Church and for the State, has been so dis-
*8ee 8. P. Review, vol. 3, Ari. 1st, Page 1st.
stinctiy and clearly drawn that to make both responsible
tor the tu ition of our youth, would be to render "God the
author of confusion."
Now we apprehend that neither of these assertions can
with strict propriety be made. It is true that God has com¬
manded the parent to '-train up his child in the way
he should go," That he solemnly charged His servant,
saying in reference to His words: "Ye shall teach themj,
your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine
house, and when thou walkest by thv way, when thou
Iiest down and when thou risest up," but the christian is no
where commanded in so many words to engage in communi¬
cating secular learning, which is an important duty imposed
upon every teacher in a Parochial School. This dnty can
be seen only by natural inference and not from positive
command. But the other position we regard as much more
untenable. One of the most difficult problems which chris¬
tian moralists have ever attempted to solve, has been to de¬
termine in all cases what duties belong exclusively to the
State and what exclusively to the Church. And the reason
of this embarrassment has doubtless grown out of the fact
that some of these duties have not been clearly assigned, but
have been left to be assigned by christian prudence to both
institutions or to either according to the multifarious states
in which social organization is found. This sentiment will
receive confirmation by reference to the 6th chapter of the
Acts of the Apostles. It appears that the more spiritual la,-
bors of the disciples had been diminished by a partial atten¬
tion to those which were less so:—"the serving of tables."
They did not however reject this service as belonging ex¬
clusively to the State, but called the multitude of the disci¬
ples together and urged them, as we suppose under Divine
authority, to select men, "full of the Holy Ghost, and to ap¬
point them over this business." Here we have a duty
which is called a "serving of tables" solemnly and systemat¬
ically undertaken and performed by the Church. Nor are
we aware that the obligation which led to the discharge of
that duty has ever been denied. Nor do we suppose that it
would have been wrong on the part of the commonwealth
to have co-operated with the Church in supplying the wants
of the poor. And the same duty is now attended to conjoint¬
ly by both institutions in perhaps every commonwealth of
this nation. Nor do we suppose that either party has ever
yet felt that it was thereby interfering with the business
of the other, or making God the "author of confusion."
It does not therefore necessarily follow that the "du-
ties" which are "civil are not ^sacred," and "vice versa."
The friends of Denominational Education do not feel
bound to say that the State has not the right, and that she
is under no obligation, to educate her childienand youths—•
It may or may not have the right, or like individuals, it may
be under the most solemn obligation to the discharge of an
office or duty for which it has but little or no qualifications, and
must therefore do an injury in the attempt. And neither
men nor States have a right to do wrong. We have no evi¬
dence that the Great Head of the Church has drawn a dis¬
tinct hair line between the duties of the State and of the
Church, which is to run through all possible circumstances,
and that He has said to His people, "Hitherto shalt thou
come but no farther."
It is true that the existence of human government is as re¬
ally of Divine appointment as the existence of the Church: for
"the powers that be are ordained of God." And rulers have
important duties to perform. Theydretobe "a terror to
evil works, and the Ministers of God to the Church for good."
But there are many things connected with the institution of
government which Divine wisdom has evidently left to be
determined by human wisdom. Among these are the exact
form which the government itself shall in every case assume,
the extent of liberty which shall be granted, the right of re¬
sistance to constituted authority, and as we suppose the num¬
ber of interests which should in all cases be committed to
its control. If the constituents of any State were all intelli¬
gent, all virtuous, all pious, all harmonious in their faith and
practice, they might then for prudential reasons, commit to
the guardianship of their rulers many interests which must
now be withheld. But as these are not the invariable char¬
acteristics of either the ruler9 or the ruled, Providence
seems not to have laid down any invariable rule for the
mode of administration or the extent of governmental au¬
thority.
Now if this position be true, (and the opposers of denom¬
inational education, have not shown it to be otherwise,) then
all that has been said about making God the "author of
confusion," and of the State being the "only proper authority
to which education should be entrusted," is an attempt to be
wise above what is written.
They have not shown nor can they show that the Great
Head of the Church has authorised christian parents to sub¬
mit their children to whatever system of education any and
every State may think proper to adopt.
The question then resolves itselt into one of enlightened
prudence, and is to be determined by circumstances. Is then
the business of education of such a nature, and are the com¬
monwealths of this country of such achatacter as to render it
advisable that they should have the management and control
of our literary institutions?
In settling these questions much of the data, which the
General Assembly had before them in arriving at the con¬
clusion to which they have come, might here be introduced
as decisive of the points at issue. But as the opponents of
Denominational Education seem to be so burdened with the
weight of their own thoughts as not to have felt the force- of
the arguments by which the whole Assembly have been
swa}7ed, it may not be amiss to attempt to awaken their sen¬
sibilities by showing that some of their own positions are
not as conclusive to other minds as perhaps they have been
to theirs.
1, It is argued that "education is an affair purely civil,
purely temporal," and therefore that the Church has no more
power to control it than she has to control any other art.—
Now this argument derives its whole supposed force from a
misrepresentation of the term education. The etymological
import of the word is a leading or drawing out, and embra¬
ces in its common acceptation, the instilling into the mind
"principles of arts, science, morals, religion, and behavior,"
and that the author of the sentiment quoted above, is willing
to give it a signification inconsistent with his own desciiption,
he has shown when on page 11 of Review before quoted, he
says: "Admit the word of God to be sufficient for the
schools as the teacher of that part of public education which
relates to religion?'' Yet this same writer has attempted to in¬
stitute a parallel between the condition of a number of youth
engaged in getting an education, and that of the youthful
apprentices of our common artisans. And says on page
5th of Southern Presbyterian Review, vol. 3rd, No. 1st, art.
1st, "nor can it be shown that a company of boys at School
is more liable to spiritual injury than a company of boys at
a tannery or carpenter's shop." Now in order to make good
this position he must first show that close physical labor
has no more tendency to produce exhaustion and consequent
disinclination to many vicious practices, than has mental.—
He must also assign a reason for the fact that students are
generally regarded as the most inconsiderate and reckless
class of community—so much so that no sane man seeks a
residence adjoining a college campus or school house. He
should also account for the fact that we so often hear of re¬
bellions and dismissions in our seals of learning, and of col-
!ege and school officers being compelled to abandon their lo¬
cations from the odium into which they have fallen among
their pupils.
The truth is that our youth while under process of
education, gathered from all ranks in society, thrown togeth¬
er as they usually are, in large numbers, and influenced more
or less by those whom, through an abuse of language, we
call lazy students, are without special moral training, the
most ungovernable part of society. Nothing in such circum¬
stances but the oft repeated word of God, sanctioned by the
force of pious example, and quickened by the Divine spirit,
can arrest the waywardness of youth, and, say successfully
to the storm of passion within, "peace, be still."
And such, is the disparity between education and every¬
thing else purely civil or secular, that the educated in expa¬
tiating upon its advantages, if they classif}7 it with any other
interest that is purely temporal, they are constantly liable to
be betrayed into gross inconsistencies.
The same writer who has said of certain branches of edu¬
cation, "these are merely arts" and that the "moral influ¬
ence" of "even our sheriffs, coroners and constables is as real
and may be tar more extensive than that of school-masters"
says: "Estimate if you can the value of education as an in¬
strument by which other attainments pa ay be made, and oth¬
er enjoyments secured, and other victories won: its value as
a training by means of which we are fitted for higher efforts
and severer labors under capacities continually expanding
in the pursuit of objects more and more exalted: its value as
a distinction, the most pure and singular that is confined to
this poor earth: its value as a security and the greatest tem¬
poral security against vice, and want and degrading sin: its
value as a solace and the most precious earthly solace un¬
der sbrrow and disappointment and corroding care: its val¬
ue as a trust to be used for the benefit of those around us
for the State itself and for posterity: and above all its value
as a development of the precious stores which God's mu¬
nificence has hid away in the deep secret chambers of the
mind:" He then asks, "shall notthe State, 'cherish'such a
work? And ihe friends of religious education are read}7 to
ask, how can the Church be indifferent as to the manner in
which such a work is accomplished? or how can she be
branded as an usurper when she is laboring after the most
effectual model for raising such a "security against vice and
want and degrading si/?.?" Or where is the propriety of com¬
paring the moral influence of Him who communicates such
a power to that of the humblest functionary of society?
And the injustice of the comparison will be more apparent
when we reflect that the education here described is but a
mere skeleton of what is proposed by the advocates of the
denominational enterprise. And besides, the most noble de¬
velopments which mere intellectual culture displays are but
germs bursting and swelling with the life to come. And it
has been mainly with a view to this coming life that Denomi¬
national Education has been undertaken. Its object is to
train man for immortality, and in so doing to furnish a guar¬
antee for the proper use of his powers in lime. With a
view to these ends it lays before him, daily, the instructions-
of him who "spake as never man spake." It plies his intel¬
lect, his affections, his conscience daily with those great cen¬
tral truths of humanity, duty, usefulness, and responsibility,
which the Bible, alone contains, and which none but men
chosen as much for their piety as their scholarship, can be
expected successfully to communicate. If then education be
so very different, both in point of importance and in its bear¬
ings upon our spiritual well-being, from all other things to
which it has been compared by the advocates for State con¬
trol, such advocates must present a more logical specimen
of thinking before the Church will be convinced that she has
no more right to superinted the education of her children,
than she has to Lake under her control the "workshop or the
tannery."
2, Again it is argued that the magnitude of Education is
such as to require the control of the State—that "the whole
resources of commonwealths laid under such contribution as
the whole power of commonwealths alone can confer and di¬
rected with a unity and comprehensiveness, which absolute¬
ly demand the presence and authority of the State, is ade¬
quate to the result professed to be desired."
Now this position involves two things which must be sat¬
isfactorily settled, before the argument can have any force.—
1, Has any and every state a right to lay contributions for
purposes of Education? 2, Will the management of educa¬
tion by the commonwealth secure the greater number of ed¬
ucated citizens? In arguing the former point we readily
admit that education is important, yea peculiarly so, to all
States in which the democratic element is predominant; but
so is religion and many other interests which cannot be
reached by legislation, without hazarding individual tights.
If the Stale have a right to levy taxes for the support of any
system of education which she may think proper to adopt, it
would be difficult to show,, that she has not also a right to.
compel all the parents within her limits to patronize her seats
12
ofl-earning by sending their children. And in granting this
privilege to the government, we say with Lycurgus, that
"children are the properly of the State," we permit it to
"engulph" the family—and to trample upon the consciences
of thousands of christian parents, which when pre-
preserved inviolate, constitute the great bulwark of national
safety. Government, though of Divine appointment, and
though essential to social happiness, yet, in most stales ofso-
cietv its sphere of action should be confined exclusively to
the work of protection. All the great and vital interests of
the community, have been carried on most successfully, when
left to individual and associated exertion. The government
resembles an enclosure which we throw around our premises
—important as a protection, but not otherwise determining
whether the enclosed premises shall become a fruitful field or
a barren waste. It has taken religion under its fostering care,
only to strip it of its vitality, and to make it an engine of per¬
secution, and a servile propagator of error. In other coun¬
tries it has taken education under its control, only to make it
an upholder of antiquated errors, and in our own to squan¬
der its resources by improper legislation, and to force the
more conscientious to withhold their patronage from State in¬
stitutions because of their irreligious tendencies. And even
in its attempts to foster trade and to encourage industry, it
has not unfrequently weakened the incentive to labor and
spread alienation and discord among its own citizens. The
prime object of civil government should be to repress crime.
Its proper and highest function in states of society like ours,
is to watch over the liberties of each and of all, leaving open
to every .virtuous citizen the wiriest field for the exertion
of his own powers. We do not say that the State should be
so heartless as to take no interest in the education of the peo¬
ple, especially of the poorer classes. B37 no means. If she
have at her command abundant resources derived through a
channel which has not infringed upon the liberties of individ¬
ual citizens, she cannot exhibit her munificence more lauda¬
bly than by making liberal donations for the support of edu¬
cation. But here let her influence cease. Here as in the
case of her donated lands, let the right of control be yielded
to districts or communities, and she will reap a richer har¬
vest than if that influence were further maintained. The
unrestrained action and feeling of personal responsibility se¬
cured by an arrangement of this kind, will give more effi¬
ciency to the means thus controlled, than any State authori¬
ty can command. We intend to adduce some facts corrob¬
orative of this position.
13
But belore leaving this point, we would state an
object ion in a moral point of view, to- giving the Slate
in every instance the control of education. And here,
we wish not to offend by speaking "evil of dignities,"-
but to give utterance to convictions which the attentive ob¬
server of public men cannot escape. We do not intend to-
repeat what thousands have affirmed—that monarchy cor¬
rupts the State, but that republicanism purifies the political
atmostphere. We mean to say that there is a standard of
moral rectitude which has been erected for politicians even
in ourown country, which prevents them from being the safest
guardians of education. Their conduct is not tested like
other men's, by the immutable principles of right and
wrong, as found in the word of God. On the contrary, po¬
litical power is looked upon as a prize which may be lawfully
obtained by means that would be spurned in private life.—
It is thought that intrigue, duplicity and management are
partially authorized by the importance of the object in view.
Now in exact proportion as this erroneous belief obtains—in
proportion as men are led to look upon these prin¬
ciples as not eternal, unalterable, and binding at once
all classes of community—and in proportion as political in¬
stitutions teach that truth, honesty and fair dealing are local,
partial obligations, in the same proportion do they become
disqualified for determining who shall be the instructors of
our youth, and what the kind and extent of moral instruction
they should receive.
Government, therefore, in all ordinary cases had better be
confined to its more legitimate sphere, and leave education to
the control of those to whom it can be entrusted with less
hazard to the rights of citizens and to the moral purity of the
instructions given.
3, Again, the argument for State control from the magni¬
tude of the work of educating a whole people, proceeds upon
the assumption, that a larger portion of the community will
thus become educated. The truth of this assump¬
tion the advocates for Denominational Education are
bv no means prepared to admit. Their opponents
say that—"alter all that can be done in this manner has been
done, by all the Denominations, does any one really imag¬
ine that a serious approach is made towards educating six or
seven millions of persons." Now to say nothing of the ab¬
surdity of attempting to decide bow much the several De¬
nominations can accomplish before they have made the prop¬
er exertion, when they have already done so much in so
short a time, we would ask in reply, what have the common-
14
-wealths done? Denominational measures have not been
adopted but to a very limited extent, in most of the States
of this Union. And what have these States done? Have
they made a "serious" approach towards educating their
millions?
The advocates for the denominational plan do not claim
for it absolute perfection, or unlimited power in supplying
the educational wants of the people. This is not the point
at issue. The preference of ecclesiastical to State authority
over the interests of education is all they claim. And this
claim is based not simply upon the superiority, in a moral
point of view, of the instructions given, but also upon the
fact that it bids fair to secure a greater number of educated
persons than the State has ever yet secured,or can secure by
exclusive control. Admit that the commonwealth holds in
her hands the power, and, for the sake of argument, admit
that it is both right and expedient that she should spend the
treasures of the country tor the promotion of education in
her legislative capacity—that she has made liberal donations,
erected houses, endowed professorships, made provision^ for
the payment of teachers, the grand desideratum towards se¬
curing an educated people has not yet been reached. The
consent of the parent, and of the guardian has not yet been
obtained. Poverty and avarice, though great, we apprehend
are not the chief obstacles to the general prevalence of learn¬
ing. Confidence in the moral bearing of the instructions giv¬
en, and in the example by which the character of the child is
moulded, together with a feeling of personal responsibility
for the success of the school or college, are moie powerful in¬
centives to the work of educating than any facilities
that the State can afford. But on this point we promised
facts.
Dr. Candlish of the Free Church of Scotland, in his reports
of what that denomination, in despite of all the pressure of
their circumstances, has already accomplished, says, "The
result is that at least seventy thousand of the youth of Scot¬
land are receiving their education from the members of the
Free Church, and mainly at her expense, and be adds farther
that the Free Church of Scotland, are able by God's blessing
to go forward with energy in the enterprise of providing for
Scotland and Scotland's children the sort of education our
fore-fathers designed."
And in one of the older of the Southern States of this Uni¬
on twelve or fifteen years ago, there were not exceeding 100
students at her University, which at that time was the only
college in the State. Since then the three prominent de-
15
dominations in the State have established colleges under
their own control, and the results are that more than 500 young
men are now in college in that State, the University vastly
inore flourishing than heretofore, a multiplication of qualified
teachers for high schools and academies, and a powerful im¬
pulse given to the work of general education.
Other facts might be cited; but these we believe may be
taken as a fair illustration of the effects of the Denomination*
al enterprise upon the interest of education generally. This
enterprise consults the views, the feelings, and the prefer¬
ences ot individuals, and will therefore induce thousands to
educate who would otherwise neglect it. Let the. pian be
adopted generally, and then, whether the State afford pecu¬
niary aid or not, there will be awakened a degree of
interest in the business of educating the masses, which the
State has never yet awakened.
Those fears which are based upon the belief that there are
large numbers of our citizens so averse to sectarian influence
that they will not patronise denominational institutions, are
without facts to confirm them. Wherever denominational
schools and colleges have been established,the work has been
done in no small measure by men professing no religious creed,
and who have patronised such institntions in preference to
those under the control of the State. The fact is that the
great body of our citizens are more afraid of the bear¬
ing of ir religion upon their children than they are of what has
been called "Intense Presbyterianism."
We cannot believe our opponents when they tell us that
the Presbyterian Church has more to fear from entering into
the denominational enterprise than have other branches of the
Christian Church.
Presbyterians are even now regarded by many not belong¬
ing to their own body, as having pecularities which especi¬
ally commend them as teachers.
And these peculiarities must either grow out of the doc¬
trines they hold or the modes of instruction they have adop¬
ted. Let then, their doctrines be more thoroughly inculca¬
ted, and their modes of instruction he more universally adop¬
ted, and we may expect soon to see them exalted to a higher
and wider sphere of influence and usefulness in the great bus¬
iness of enlightening mankind. But ecclesiastical superiority
is a minor consideration. The prime object of all who are
engaged in the Denominational enterprise should be to pre¬
sent to their country the greatest possible number of
thoroughly educated citizens. Let this be the motive, and
let all the branches of the Christian Church enter cordially
16
and energetically into the work, and our country will soon
present a more intelligent and virtuous people than has
ever yet been furnished.
Let the assertion that "some of the sects are unfit to be
trusted with the education of the people" be granted. What
then? Must we introduce State control in order to suppress
the evil consequences growing out of their unfitness to teach?
Is this in accordance with our national policy? Is it repub¬
lican? If they are unfit to take charge of education, it is ad¬
mitted that they are doubly so to become teachers of reli¬
gion. Must we then become the advocates of a Church es¬
tablishment in order to arrest the evils of improper religious
teachings? Perhaps there is no American citizen who will
venture to avow such a sentiment; yet the position sometimes
taken by the opposers ofdenominational education, iflogically
sustained, would lead to such a conclusion.
In a mixed system a lesser evil must be often borne for the
sake of greater good. The atmostphere, for example, often
becomes impregnated with pestilential vapors, and spreads
a blight over whole communities; yet if we attempt to pre¬
vent the free circulation ol the air, health and even life itself
is in danger.
In like manner we cannot attempt by legislative con¬
trol to suppress the evils of unqualified teachers, without
perilling the interests of both education and religion. The
Protestant and truly republican sentiment is that "truth is
mighty and will prevail."
Nor are the leading denominations of our country inade¬
quate to the work of education from a want of pecuniary re¬
sources. By combining the energies of a sufficiently exten¬
sive scope of the country, they can easily endow the necessa¬
ry number of colleges, build up academies, and by the co-op¬
eration ot those favorable to the enterprise, establish primary
schools for their own children and for those of their mote
indigent neighbors in almost every community. What is
wanting is the proper exertion. Denominations which have
shown themselves so adequate to the support of religion at
home and are annually sending off so many thousands by
voluntary action to pay for the enlightenment of other coun¬
tries, can surely be induced to do an immense work in the cause
ofChristian education. Letthem, then, enter upon this work
not from a spirit of hostility to the Stale, but from a sense of
christain duty, and they cannot fail of success. Should they
meet with pecuniary embarrassments for a time, these will
eventually be removed. The time will doubtless come
when even government itself will be disposed to lend her aid
17
without claiming the right of control. In fact this time has
already come in Scotland and in some of the States of this
Union.
The colleges of New York and some of the other older
States, have already received pecuniary aid from the com¬
monwealth, though not under its control, and doubtless simi¬
lar results will take place in other States. Our legislators,
seeing that the denominations have taken upon them the bus¬
iness of educating the children of the Slate, and are doing the
work thoroughly, and in a manner- that costs the common¬
wealth nothing, will be led to look favorably upon the enter¬
prise.
But it is intimated that denominational education is unfa¬
vorable to a love of country—that it is a movement by which
"Patriotism.... .has been outraged and the great bond of
human brotherhood broken." •
This is certainly a grave charge, and if it can be substan¬
tiated ought to induce every christian to withhold his sanc¬
tion from the enterprise. The love of our country and of
our country-men is an important principle, and not to be
trifled with, or to be swallowed up by a pretended sympathy
for universal man. It is a principle implanted by the hand
of Nature, recognised by the Bible, and is far more condu¬
cive to universal benevolence than any fine-spun theoretical
philanthropy which philosophers (falsely so called) have tried
to substitute in its place. Nehemiab, Paul, and even our Sa¬
viour himself seemed to have been devoted patriots. But
what is patriotism? And upon what is it based? Does it
consist simply in a willingness to fight the battles of our
nation, or in vigorous efforts to aggrandize any particular
party? or in the exercise of any and every means by which
the whole State may be aggrandized? or can we even call
those true patriots who, from a species of natural magnanimity,
have been led to look indignantly upon all those manceuverings
which are the reproach of our own internal condition, but
who, nevertheless, are ready to sanction a crooked or ungen¬
erous policy towards other States and nations? Certainly
not. True" patriotism, like every other great virtue must be
founded upon true religion. No one can really love his
countrymen, respect their rights, and seek their permanent
well being, unless he has himself been taught to love God
and man, and to adopt the golden rule for the regulation
of his own life in all possible circumstances. We may there¬
fore expect that a man's patriotism will be in proportion to
the amount of his religious knowledge, and the devotedness
of his piety. Man was made for communion with his Maker.
And until that communion which has been broken up by
2
18
trangression, is restored, his faculties and affections will nev¬
er move in harmony and with due effect. It is when the
love of God is shed abroad in the hearts of fallen man, that
the different parts, so to speak, of his moral constitution, will
resume their original position, and that he himself is enabled
to act as he was designed to do, for the glory of God, in all the
varied relations oflife. Now the great instrumentality by which
this change is wrought, is not simply this or that kind of educa¬
tion, but it is faith in the Redeemer, through whom the soul
rises to the recognition of God himself, and again enters into
communion with Him, through the indwelling- of the Holy
Spirit. But "Faith eometh by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God." And it is here that the Denominational plan
of Education effects its noblest work. It plies the mind,
the heart, and the conscience with the Word—giving "line
upon line ar.d precept upon precept." And thus sowing the
seeds which the Spirit quickens into a purer and steadier
patriotism than any State munificence can ever awaken.—
When the word is thus communicated and made effectual,
man becomes the possessor of a principle which will most
certainly, and with increasing strength, constrain him to the
discharge of every obligation, relative to his Creator, himself,
his country, and mankind. - Let his knowledge of the Divine
Word thus acquiied, become perfect, and beisinvested with
both the will and the power to discharge with consistency
and perseverance, with honor and with usefulness all the du¬
ties of life.
And what has been said on this point will apply with equal
force to the objection to Denominational education, urged on
the ground of its supposed tendency to foster a spirit of sec¬
tarianism.
Those minds, which during this course of mental train¬
ing, have had free access to the fountains of Bible truth and
have been daily urged to drink deeply of its spirit, are not
so apt to be deficient either in their regard for their country,
or for those who may think differently from them. Relig-
ous ignorance is the great foster-parent of bigotry
and of sectarian contractedness. Nor is it true that the
asperities of the various denominations are always worn off
by the friction of daily intercousein seats of learning under
the control of the State. The reverse has frequently occur¬
red. The foundation of some of the bitterest animosities
which have marred the face of Zion, has been laid amidst
religious excitements in institutions not under the control of
any particular denomination. "Can two walk together ex¬
cept they be agreed?" When parties are not harmonious,
the less they have to do with each other, and the more dis-
19
tinct and separate their spheres of action and influence, the
better.
But is this sectarian spirit so dangerous, and has the cause
of education suffered so fearfully when in the bands of the
church? We must admit that Papacy has marred and per¬
verted education, government, religion and every thing else
that it has ever touched. But it has hitherto maintained the
control over the education of its own children in this coun¬
try, and would doubtless continue to do so whatever author¬
ity government might assume over our seats of learning: for
on this depends its existence. But is it so, that the wantof
"spirituality and of orthodoxy" in the English and Scottish
Universities is to be charged to the account of Denomina¬
tional control? It is indeed true that these Universities
have been nominally under the control of the English and
Scottish Churches; but the Churches themselves have been
sounder the control of the government, as to cripple every
denominational action of which the State might not approve.
They have had for ages a statute making it their privilege to
exact of every officer in the one a subscription to the 39 arti¬
cles; and in the other to the confession of faith, but how
often have these subscriptions been virtually and pos¬
itively refused, and yet the Courts have decided that the
refusal did not disqualify the applicant for the office sought.
In the Edinburgh Review for 1843, we have the following
assertion, "In the year 1711, only three years after the act
of security had passed, on the occasion of a contested elec¬
tion of a Frofessor in King's College, Aberdeen, the vote of
Dr. Bower was objected to because he had not signed the
confession of faith; but the objection was repelled by the
Court of Sessions, who decided that the omission did not dis¬
qualify him from exercising the rights and privileges of his
office." Such decisions have been so frequently made and
the statutes originally intended to protect the orthodoxy of
those churches, so often virtually set aside, that the Univer¬
sities of both England and Scotland, are now boldly
claimed to be National and not Denominational Institu¬
tions.
If then there be this want of spirituality of orthodoxy in
the teachers of the Universities ofEngland and Scotland, it is
doubtless to be attributed in no small degree to the control
which the State has exercised over the action of the church.
But let the action of the churches be untrammelled as they
are in this country, and we may as safely commit to their
guardianship the cause of education as that of religion. In
fact every argument against denominational education, bas¬
ed upon the dangerous tendency of sectarianism, must, by a
20
logical advocacy, favor a church establishment. Grant that
in some instances the sects have done an injury to both the
causes of religion and education. But what has government
done?—when it has stifled liberty, bribed the conscience and
put the infidel, the drunkard and the libertine in the chair of
the instructor of youth—thus offering "strange fire upon the
altar" and visiting upon society influences only to blast and
to consume. Let it be that the various sects are only "frag¬
ments into which for our sins God has allowed His church
to be broken" are we therefore to discountenance '.he separ¬
ate action of each and of all these fragments? Ought men
forever to have abandoned the use of every species of lan¬
guage because for their sins in attempting to build the lower
of Babel, God "confounded the language of all the earth?"
Is labor to be refused because for our sin it is declared, "in
the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," Or are we
not to pray daily "lead me not into temptation" because for
our sins we have received a strong bias to do evil? Certain¬
ly not. All the multiplied ills allotted to us in this life, are
doubtless permitted because of our sins. But it is the pre¬
rogative of infinite wisdom to bring good out of evil—to turn
the curse into a blessing.
Our Saviour while on earth chose out of the world a sect,
and commanded His disciples to come out from the world.
Until then there shall be universal harmony both in faith and
practice, there must be sects, and these sects, though per¬
mitted, as judgements, like many other ills oflife, have prov¬
ed safe-guards and salutary chastisements to the church of
God.
Let not then the friends of Denominational Education
be deterred from the discharge of an important christian duty
by the cant of "sectarian bigotry." If it is our duty to
educate our children at all, it is evidently our duty to do it
where their minds will be most under the influence of Bible
truth. Deity has given to man no unnecessary revelation.—
The with lding of any portion of Bible truth must be fol¬
lowed by a corresponding defect in moral character, and
perhaps by a lurking skepticism in the understanding. Nor
does the cause of religion suffer alone when Bible truth is
withheld or imperfectly taught. The whole mind is dark¬
ened by throwing a partial cloud over this central light. Its
reasonings on many subjects through want of familiarity with
religious truth become unstable and unsatisfactory. The
Bible is to the whole sphere of truth what the sun is to
our solar system; and in withdrawing it from its central po¬
sition or confining its influences to a narrow range, we in¬
flict very much such an injury upon the soul as the earth
21
would suffer were the king of day to abandon his throne or
contract his energies into a smaller compass.
Entertaining such views we have thought it not amiss to
have enquired into the objections urged against Denomina¬
tional education, and to have shown lhat the pretension now
set up for State control over general education is utterly
wrong. That a thorough education by means of State con¬
trol in such a country as ours, is a. pure figment of the imag¬
ination, incapable of practical execution, and destitue of all
grounds of rational support; and that its logical advocacy in¬
volves the denial to the church, some of its dearest rights
and the subversion of some of its highest obligations—while
it sacrifices all hope of the correct training of thousands of
our youth and children upon the altar of a false patriotism
and of a spurious liberality.
Since the appearance of the letter to Gov. Manning in the
Southern Presbyterian Review, some ofour Denominational
Journals have spoken plainly and forcibly upon this subject.
A writer in the Presbyterian of May last, in speaking ot the
division which the Review has made of education into "sec¬
ular and sacred'' says, "We recognize—and the Bible and
sound philosphy recognize, no such thing as a divisibility of
man, as a subject of education into two parts one sacred and
the other secular; one to be educated for time and another
for eternity; one qualifying to be a citizen, another fitting him
to be a christian. We repudiate wholly the proposed di¬
vorce between the things that God hath joined together.—■
Man is one being with a three-fold nature—'body, soul and
spirit'—material, intellectual and moral; and the true idea of
education is the development and training to right ends, by
lawful and appropriate means and agencies, this entire hu¬
man trinity. And so inseparable are the three natures of
man, that you must educate them together, or produce a
monstrous development." Again iri speaking of the writer
who is so highly commended by the Review as having "set
at rest''' the question of denominational education, he says,
"He seems to admit that it education were essentially a re¬
ligious process in whole or in part, the Slate cannot legiti¬
mately undertake it, and hence he labors to prove that edu¬
cation is no more necessarily a religious process than tan¬
ning or carpentering." And "having thus argued the soul and
spirU out of education—having reduced it to a mere art—
having divorced it from all necessary connexion with the
higher functions of the immortal mind, and with spiritual in¬
fluences, he hands it over to a soulless organization, the civil
Government, asserting that if there is any other thing for
22
which the State might venture to provide, without the re¬
motest possibility of intruding into the province of the church,
it is the education of the people."
The Princton Review also, for July lS54bas shown
to the public that if the subject of Denominational
education has as yet been fully "set at rest" the fi¬
nal quietus was not administered until within a very
late date. The author of the 5th article of this number of
the Review says, "The design of the church includes as one
of its essential objects the instruction of the people, Christ
said to her, "Go teach all nations." Her ministers are teach¬
ers, her great office is instruction. Of course what the
Church is required to teach is the religion of Jesus Christ.
She is to do this in the most effective way. Everything ne¬
cessary for the accomplishment of this object comes within
the scope of her commission and assumes the nature of a di¬
vine, command. If she takes the Gospel to a people who
cannot read, she is bound to teach them letters. If she goes
where the philosophy, the science, the literature ofa people
are imbued with irreligious and unchristian principles, she is
bound to establish institutions in which all these subjects
may be taught in combination with the truth. To deny this
'right to the Chu rcb is to deny her the power to fufil her great
commission. If she is to reap the harvest of truth, she must
break up the fallow ground and extirpate the briers and
thorns as well as sow the seed. You might as reasonably sow
wheat in a jungle, as expect to get christian knowledge and
faith established in minds imbued with the doctrines of
heathenism. Every missionary body therefore, has felt that
education, the education of the young, secular as well as re¬
ligious, was indispensible for the propagation of the Gospel,
and the establishment of the Church in heathen lands. Bat-
licotta in Ceylon, Dr. Duff's Institution in Calcutta, Allaha¬
bad in Northern India, are all monuments and evidences of
the necessity of secular education to the propagation of the
Gospel. These are church institutions, and to deny the
right of the church to establish such schools, shocks the con¬
scientious convictions ot the religious community, and ex¬
cites something bordering on indignation. Such denial never
could have been ventured oft by good men except to serve a
a purpose. In their zeal to protect the public schools from
injury, and to secure for them the co-operation of the rehgous
community; and in their anxiety lest State Colleges, or
those under the- control of self-oerpetuating boards of
Trustees, should lose caste or confidence, a few and only a
few of our leading men have been led for a time into the ap¬
parent assumption, that the church and church courts have
nothing to do with their secular education."
23
This position has been so fairly argued, and fully estab¬
lished fro en the article from which we just quoted, that we
cannot believe that our g'ood brethren of the Southern Pres¬
byterian Review, will again trouble the public with such ul-!
traisms as that "the Church has direct control over noth¬
ing that is not spiritual in its matter, &c. That the duties of
the State are civil, not sacred; the duties of the church are
sacred, not civil." The force of truth we feel assured,
will secure to the churches rest on this point.
If a controversy on the subject of Denominational Educa¬
tion is hereafter to be carried on, we are persuaded it will be
confined solely to the expediency of the enterprise. Upon
this point much has been written and there is still room for a
protracted discussion. The unlimited nature of the contro¬
versy here arises from the iact that the parent, the church
and the State, are each and all bound to see that the youth
of the land are properly educated, and when either of these
is found in possession of t he greatest number of those attrib¬
utes necessary for a full and thorough training of the young,
that very fact designates it as the proper agent to control in
the work of education. For neither parents, churches nor
States have a moral right on the grounds of expediency to
perform a work less perfectly than it might otherwise be
done. Circumstances are then to determine the controlling
power of education; and these are almost as diversified as
the natural scenery of different States and nations. There¬
fore the discussion on this basis may be protracted, and an
immense amount of reasoning and facts arrayed on each side
to support the position espoused.
All that we shall attempt further in this essay will be to
refute some of the objections which have been urged against
the denominational plan of education. In the Southern
Presbyterian Review vol. 7th, No. 3, it has been said that
"The example, temper and habitual deportment ofthe teach¬
ers co-operating with the dogmatic instructions which have
been received at the fireside and in the Church, and coupled
with the obligatory observances of the Sabbath, will be
found to do more in maintaining the power of religion, _ than
the constant recitation of. the catechism or the ceaseless incul¬
cation of sectarian peculiarities."
In all due deference to the author of this language, we
must be permitted to say that it takes for granted three
things, no one of which can be proved. 1st, lhat the prop¬
er example, temper and habitual deportment, areto be found
only, or at least more frequency, in teachers chosen by the
State, than those chosen by the Church. 2nd, That
those dogmatic religious instructions, "wnich ought to be
made a prominent part ofeducation from the primary school
24
to the University" will have been universally or generally re¬
ceived before the youth is sent to college.
3rd, That the only work which the teacher in a denomina¬
tional College is expected to do in maintaining religion, is to
secure "the constant recitation of the catechism, or the cease¬
less inculcation of sectarian peculiarities."
Now we are willing to submit the question to an enlight¬
ened publie, and even to the intelligence and candor of that
brother, whether either of these assumptions can be estab¬
lished by facts. Will the moral and religions character of
the Professors of Nassau Hall, Yale and Hampden Sidney, or
if you please of Danville, Davidson, Emory and Mercer
University, suffer disparagement by a comparison with
that of any Stale Institution in the Union? All of these have
ever been under denominational control, and several of
them under ecclesiastical control. The question sub¬
mitted to the parent when about to send bis son to college,
is not whether be will place the idol of his heart where he
may receive with the "terrible certainty of fate" the benefits
of good example, temper and habitual deportment" which
the State is said to be so competent to secure in its Profes¬
sors, or to be made the subject of a bigoted inculcation of
creeds and catechisms. The denominational enterprise
places before the parent no such alternative. It simply sub¬
mits to his option on the one hand, whether his son shall be
placed for four years of the most plastic period of human life,
under the benign influence of teachers who have been chosen
by men professing piety, and selected as much perhaps for
their godly deportment, as their intellectual attainments:—
men who have been authorised to teach the whole "truth as it
is in Jesus," whether by means of Bible classes, creeds or
catechisms; unawed by statutory control, or the fear of politi¬
cal or sectarian decapitation: or on the other hand, whether
for this important period of his life, the son shall be placed
under the guardianship of men who dare not enforce by pre¬
cept the "dogmatic instruction received at the fire side,"
some of whom may laugh at the creed of his father; and oth¬
ers of whom, if known to avow fullv their views either
in politics or religion, would instantly be removed from of¬
fice.
And who does not know that a large proportion of those
who attend denominational colleges, and a stilt larger num¬
ber of those who connect themselves with State Institutions,
have received but little, and in many cases no important
"dogmatic instruct ions" of a religious character, around the
fire side? How then is the proper religious instruction of
such to be provided for? Simply by the chapel and the ev¬
idences of Christianity? This modicum may meet the full
25
demands of thousands, but is certainly very inadequate to
supply a religious "atmostphere which must surround the
mind and permeate all its cavities, in order that its develop¬
ment may be free, healthful and vigorous?" and is certainly
too small a portion to satisfy the wishes of the pious parent.
It ever the human mind needs such such an atmostphere it
is while at college. And here it is that the church lias an
advantage over the State. All the moral and religious ap¬
pliances sought and hoped for by the advocates of State con¬
trol, are actually possessed by institutions under the control of
the church; and besides these the free use ofthe Bible, whether
in the form ofBible classes, or catechetical recitation. Why then
attempt to disparage the institutions of the Church by a car¬
icature of the work they are designed to do, and
in most instances are actually accomplishing? The
Princeton Review has answered: "To serve a purpose."
2, Again it is said that religion is more safe in the hands
of the whole State, than under the control of any one of the
Denominations.* "In case of State institutions the securi¬
ty for religion lies in the public opinion of the whole commu¬
nity; in the case of church institutions in the public opin¬
ion of a single denomination, and as the smaller body can
mote easily become corrupt than the larger, as there is a con¬
stant play of antagonisms which preserves the health
in the one case, while they are wanting in the other, it
seems clear that a Slate college on the whole, and in
the long run, must be safei than any sectarian institu¬
tion."
We have never before learned that there was any fixed
tendency in the largeness of a body, either political, religious
or mixed, to secure the purity and orthodoxy ofthe church.
No doubt the public would be highly gratified to have this
point substantiated by historical facts. On the contrary, we
have heretofore been taught to believe that when the body
was very large, the clashing claims to be harmonized, nu¬
merous, and the diversity of interests to be preserved, great,
the body itself like the Roman Empire becomes endangered
by its own magnitude. This complication of sectarian
claims, where all the denominations are to act in combination
with the State, has certainly startled not only some of our
wisest ecclesiastical bodies lest the interests of religion should
suffer; but has led a large portion of American statesmen
with Jefferson at their head, to contend that the State has
nothing to do with religion except to exclude it from all pla¬
ces of education under her control. This end has been at¬
tempted by our political men in some instances by means of
statutory law, and in others, by selecting such men lor the
•See Presbyterian Review, Jan , J844.
26
trusteeship, as would vote for the mere moralist, the ration¬
alist, or even the avowed infidel rather than the man of em¬
inent piety of any denomination. We have therefore had
even in South Carolina an infidel President of the College,
and in other States we know have had drunken, licentious and
heretical Professors. And it these State institutions have
been "brought hack to their moorings," the work has no
doubt been accomplished in no small degree by the healthy
action of the several denominations of Christians, in either
sending their sons to religious institutions already in exis¬
tence, or nobly putting forth their own separate eneigies to
create new ones. And this we contend is the most wholesome
and least troublesome antagonism which the several
denominations can bring to bear upon the religion of the
State.
The guardians of State institutions, seeing the prosperity
and growing popularity of institutions under the control ol
the Church, become eloquent for the religious element of ed¬
ucation, and in self defence are driven to reject every appli¬
cant for their Professorships, whose character shocks the
feelings of the religious community.
Does this Review really believe that the Presbyterian
Church of South Carolina is a less trust-worthy body than
the whole Slate? Would religion so far as affected by the
business of education, be less safe in her hands than in the
hands of the State legislature—a body of political men cho¬
sen for political purposes, representing perhaps a dozen dit-
ferent religious sects, each of which feels conscientiously
bound to see that it is not defrauded in the least of its full
representation in the halls of public instruction, but four-
fifths perhaps of whom lay no claim to vital piety? Are these
the men and these ihe circumstances, from whom, and un¬
der which we are to expect the safest guardians of orthodoxy
and purity in religion? Does the ark of pure and undefiled
religion never more forward toward a secure haven only
when borne over a sea of turbid waters, tossed to and fro
by the contending waves of sectarian strife and guided by
the State as its only Palinuras of safety? Are we depen¬
dent mainly upon the outward antagonisms of the various
sects for the orthodoxy of our creeds and the purity and sim¬
plicity of our christian fathers? If so, sectarianism is no lon¬
ger to be regarded as a curse. If any ore disposed to ad¬
mit this position, they should first consider well which is the
greater evil, "the fanaticism which despises the State, or the
infidelity which contemns the church." God has ordained
the Church as well as the State. He has commissioned,
even commanded her to leach all nations; therefore to call
into question her constitutional capacity for the work assign-
27
ed, is to d eg raid e her in the eyes of the world, and to charge
her Greit Head—ihough not intentional^, as being a "hard
master."
3, Again it.is contended that the Denominational plan of
Education awakens in the community strong competition,
and from this strenous competition, willresulh 1st, "The de¬
pression of the standard of general education so as to allure
students to their halls, 2nd, The preference of what is osten-
lious and attractive in education to what is solid and substan¬
tial." Now in certain instances there may be ground for
this objection. Certain men have ever been indiscreet in
their zeal, and more especially for the promotion ofnew ob¬
jects. And the establishment of Denominational Colleges is
comparatively a new object in the more Southern part of our
country. But in other instances do we abandon an impor¬
tant principle simply because others abuse it? Must the
American people throw away their liberties because other
nations have made an improper use of freedom? Or be¬
cause in certain towns and villages, from a too great mul¬
tiplication ofbusiness houses, certain merchants have been
tempted to depress to an unwarrantable degree the price of
goods; and certain others to allure customers by that which is
ostentatious and atractrive, ratherthan by that which is solid
and substantial—shall we therefore deny the maxim that
"compelilion is the life of trade?" No more should we re¬
ject an important principle' in the work of Education, sim¬
ply because a few reckless, over zealous pioneers may have
abused it. But is the standard ofgeneral education thus ex¬
posed to permanent depression by the denominational enter¬
prise? This has not been the result in the older Slates where
the plan has had time for a fuller development of its legiti¬
mate bearings. Nor can we believe that this will he the fi¬
nal issue in those States where the plan has been less fully
tried. The guardians ofthose literary institutions,(if such these
be,) who have attempted to secure patronage by unfair
means, will find that their expedients served only a tempora¬
ry purpose. As the short sighted merchant that attempted
to secure custom by a depressed price, or the tinsel of unsub¬
stantial wares is sure in the long run to fail in his business
—so are such institutions certain to lose their patron-
age.
The advice of Pope has become one of our philosophical
proverbs, "Drink deep or taste not." There is scarcely a
parent in the land who contemplates a college course for his
son that does not most heartily subscribe to this sentiment.
As evidence of this fact we find Southern parents, contrary
often to their own pecuniary interests, and in the face of all
their sectional prejudices, still by scores, sending their sons
28
to Northern Colleges from the supposed fact that the course
of instruction is more extensive and thorough in the older in¬
stitutions. We cannot therefore admit the force of this ob¬
jection. Parents generally wish their sons thoroughly educa¬
ted, and guardians of literary institutions know this fact, and
will not generally attempt to allute students to their halls by
depressing the standard of education or holding up
the ostentatious instead of the "substantial and solid."
4, Finally it is objected that sectarian colleges tend "to per¬
petuate the strife of sects, to fix whatever is heterogeneous
in the elements of national character and to alienate the cit¬
izens from each other."
This objection derives its whole force from a misconcep¬
tion of the end aimed at, and actually obtained by denomina-
tonal education, viz, an increase of vital, intelligent belief of
the truth, and not a mere heartless, bigoted sectarianism. If
the latter were the only fruit of the denominational enter¬
prise. every true lover of his country, and his God, would be
bound to use his influence to crush it at once. Such a relig¬
ion, if we should call it by that name, is "earthly, sensual
devilish," and leaves man the slave of whatever lusts his
peculiar circumstances in life may awaken and develop. It
has ever been a most withering curse both to the Church and
the Slate. It has drawn its bloody lines over every page of
cbrisiian history, and has done more than all the allied powers
of infidelity to crush forever that true liberty wherewith
Christ makes his people free. But to establish this
liberty is the end sought, and to a high degree se¬
cured, instrumentality by the Denominational plan of
education. Man is by nature a strong partisan. His
efforts in infancy are all to secure personal ends to the
utter neglect of everything else. He next exhibits his
partiality to the mother or the nurse, to the utter exclusion of
all others; then the companions of his childljsh sports come
in for a part of his affections; afterwards his associates in the
school or college, and finally the State or nation to which he
belongs, begin to share in his benevolent regards. Now in
each of these relations there is a strong tendency to a hate¬
ful and injurious exclusiveness, which if not counteracted by
some adequate insti umentality, must produce alienation and
mutual dislike. This instrumentality the Bible alone fur¬
nishes. Its first and great work is to unself its adherents.
In making them free it emancipales them from all undue ex¬
clusiveness and leads them to believe that Stales and na¬
tions belong to a common fraternity. Whatever system,
therefore, gives freest access to the Word of God, we may
reasonably expect will do most to suppress alienation of feel¬
ing and to harmonize whatever is heterogeneous in State or
29
national character. This the denominational plan evidently
must do. It first secures a body ofteachers chosen by men pro¬
fessing piety, and then makes it their duty to use dil igently,
upon the Sabbath, as a text book, the entire Bible—that high¬
est monument of impressive style, expanded thought, exal¬
ted sublimity, moving narrative, and unparalleUed moral
precept ever given to the world. The former of these, the
State has often failed to do, and the latter she dare not' at¬
tempt, without exposing herself to the charge of injustice, and
her citizens to strife and litigation.*
And what is the testimony of history in reference to this
charge? Have these older denominational institutions such
as Yale and Princeton, and others, served either to ermen-
der or perpetuate alienation, and whatever is heterogeneous
in national character? Have their numerous alumni, many
of whom have shared largely of popular favor, been less de¬
voted to their country, or more contracted and factious than
if they had been educated by that State which is "a unit
whose people are brothers?" We cannot think so. Those
who make the objection we are now considering, would do
well to examine into some of the influences which may pos¬
sibly have grown out of an all-absorbing, over-shadowing
State institution. Such a college may tend to make her
State one, and yet that oneness may become so intense as to
prevent an easy coalescence with others whose association is es¬
sential to its own well being. It may possibly make the citizens
of the State brothers, and yet that brotherhood may give but
little evidence that it has imbibed no element that prevents
it from acting in concert with great national fraternity.
We cannot believe that a mere collegiate parentage, has
power to eradicate or even to suppress to any very great ex¬
tent, that natural selfishness whose most common fruits are
pride, alienation and party strife. This master passion of our
degenerate nature must be held in check by an intelligent and
unrestrained and practical belief of Gospel truth, or "faction
as it has ever been, will continue to be the grave of repub¬
lics." And it is unreasonable to expect that this truth can
ever exert its full power in removing whatever is heteroge¬
neous in our national character, until our whole people are
brought under its harmonizing influence; and until the Bible
the whole Bible—shall have been a text book for this life,
as well as for another in all our places of education from the
primary school to the highest university. This is a work
which perhaps no State in our Union can now do without
periling the peace and quiet of her own citizens. The prevalent
sentiment of most if not all our States, is that the "govern¬
ment should have nothing to do with religion."
* See state of common schools in Maine.
30
Amidst such a state of things what is the church to do?
We say the church, for however "broken into fragments for
her sins" she is still a personage—"the Lamb's wife." What
shall the church in her denominational capacity attempt?
Shall she under the influence of faith and hope, go forth man¬
fully to the work of building up institutions, such asthe cause
of God and our country demand? or shall she still continue
to patronize the institutions of the Slate, lest the moral ele¬
ment be taken from them and they perish? If ever there
were truth in the the maxim "charity begins at home" it must
be in such a case as this. It is hazardous enough to act with
indifference to the moral interests of our neighbors children,
whose religious training at the fireside has been neglected;
but to expose the moral and religious interests of our own, is
to incur guilt and to become obnoxious to the pains and the
penalty of heart-stricken Eli.
The guardians of State institutions ought not to expect
pious parents to patronize their institutions, if such guardi¬
ans are either unable or unwilling to provide such religious
advantages as the parent can secure elsewhere. Surely they
cannot expect the devoted parent who has written "holiness
to the Lord" upon his offspring as well as every thing else,
to continue to patronize institutions whose Professors
must admit that less than five to every hundred of their
graduates, make a profession of religion while in College,
and from whose portals the candidate for sacred ministry,
(rendered such by the appliances of College life,) is seldom
seen to issue. Such parents will certainly, if true to their
solemn vows, seek a different location for their sons.
This they will do, not out of hostility to their State,
or from a want of patriotism, but from a sense of ob¬
ligation to God and their own children. And this is the
feeling which we suppose has in most instances led to the
denominational enterprise. The advocates of denomination¬
al colleges intend no evil to State institutions. Their aim
is simply self-defence. If evils accrue to State institutions
they must be laid to the charge of their own guardians or
to the doctrine of free toleration in matters of religious be¬
lief.
The church then, should not falter in her course simply
because charges have been made against her from high
places. Elevation does not secure infallibility, The ele¬
ments she needs in order to success in this enterprise, are
energy, and a single eye to the great work of securing to as
many as possihle a thorough christian education, and espe¬
cially of supplying our TheologicalSeminaries and churches,
with devoted and thoroughly trained candidates for the min¬
istry. .
31
As yet we have seen but one plausible argument against
the separate action of the several denominations in the work
of education, i. e., a want of sufficient pecuniary resources.
And this we must believe is more apparent than real, The
difficulty does not lie so much in the actual want, as in the
unwillingness of some of our denominations to contribute the
needed pecuniary means. In this class I am very sorrow to
confess the Presbyterians of my own adopted State have no
epviable position. Will my brethren of Georgia then bear
with me a moment in the close of this article? As Presby¬
terians and friends of a thorough christian education, in some
respects you have done well; but you have not done enough.
You have selected for the location of your college as desira¬
ble a position as the country affords. * You have placed it
it near the Capitol of the Stale, and on an eminence seldom
surpassed for beauty of scenery. It now has all the advan¬
tages of rail-road communications, of health, and of a pious
and orderly community. You have erected commodious
college buildings, at a time when the prices paid for
labor were truly exorbitant. You have called successfully
upon your sister States—South Carolina and Alabama to
unite with you in the endowment of Professorships.
Through your agency the college has not had less than four
officers at a time for the last ten years. During this period
the institution has graduated one hundred and twenty-five
students, seventy-five of whom had a reputable standing in
the church when they left college, and about thirty have al>
ready entered, or are preparing to enter the Gospel Ministry.
By your perseverance in well doing yourselves, and by your
efforts to arouse your Sister States to a similar work. Ogle¬
thorpe University stands forth free from pecuniary embar¬
rassment, and with three Professorships competently endow¬
ed. This much you have already accomplished; but you
see there is still much to do, and it devolves on you, my
brethren, to see that it is done quickly. The present gener¬
ation of ministers will soon have left you, and whence are
their places to be filled? Are we to look to the North for a
supply? You know the difficulties under which a Northern
man labors amongst us, however pure may be his intentions
and devoted his piety. Or are we to look to our State insti¬
tutions for ministerial laborers? Judging from the history of
the past, are we to expect that these institutions will do
much more to supply the demand than to educate the youth
that are sent to them who are already pious? Your depen¬
dence then is upon your own college. And in order to make
that dependence reasonable and right, you must do what you
can to complete its endowment. And when I have said
this have I uot asked for much? How much do you sup-
32
pose the Presbyterians of Georgia, and of the sister States
co-operating with her in college enterprise, could and would do,
it they actually felt that the mmistenalsupply of their ownchil-
dren, and of the Southern States generally, depended upon
the speedy and complete endowment of Oglethorpe Univer¬
sity? Have we not individual members whose consciences
would not be at rest until they had well nigh endowed a
Professorship from their own resources; as the adherents to
State institutions, and the advocates of religious education in
other denominations, have repeatedly done? What, breth¬
ren, are a few dollars, compared with the spiritual advanta¬
ges ofyour families, even though these advantages should
be future? You labor and toil that your offspring may at
the distant period of some eight or ten years, become inher¬
itors of competent temporal patrimony, and will you treat
with neglect the claims and wants of an institution whose
prospective bearing upon the religious interests ofyour chil¬
dren it is wilful blindness to deny? And what you do in this
matter must be done quickly. "Our enemies are already in
the field, why stand we here idle?" They taunt us with the
alleged incompetency of our pecuniary resources: as "hav¬
ing begun to build and are not able to finish." They charge
usas being derelict to the true interests of the] common¬
wealth; they attempt to defeat our aims by the effete and un¬
generous allegations ot contractedness and of sectarian big¬
otry. The friends of State institutions are rallying around
them with increased zeal, and if they will only make these
institutions what they ought to be, we should rejoice that good
is accomplished, even though the motive be "envy" The
other leading denominations of the State are moving forward
in the work of endowment with a degree of success which
augurs a speedy completion. Will then the Presbyterians of
Georgia who set on foot the denominational enterprise in
that State, be the first to falter in their course? Will the fol¬
lowers of Knox and Calvin be the first to quail belore the
power of opposition, wherever or by whomsoever made?
Are they to be defeated in their own plans by a feeling of
false patriotism, and for that want of Denominational energy
and perseverance for which they have ever been famed?
Let it not be so. The cause of a religious education for your
own sons, the supply of a Presbyterian ministry in future, in
a word the cause of religion and true patriotism, require that
you complete speedily the endowment of your college.
Then and not till then may you expect her to compete as
successfully with other institutions of the State for patronage,
as she has already done in the moral influence which she
has exerted upon the mass of her students.
WYJ .P.I 1MB