with a thought of God as well as of man. Or, if I can trace a connection between reverent and sincere worship, and honesty and fidelity in daily business, my worship, so far as done as an aid to right conduct toward man in daily life, becomes a moral as well as a religious act.

We are now ready to answer the question as to the basis of moral instruction, and that reasonably, or without a shade of partizanship—from which may Heaven defend all discussion of such a question.

First, then, the fundamental objection to purely secular moral instruction though it may be better than none, and may be given, and have its characteristic fashion of text-books- is, that it puts asunder what is divinely joined together. Thence, as might be expected, other disadvantages flow. Individualism only too easily learns to say that one man is as good as another, each one's opinion as good as another's, and the pupil's as good as the teacher's; and morals may come to be regarded as only a matter of individual sentiment, or more or less general custom, having little power to check unruly human passions and their evil manifestations. Merely secular moral instruction also lacks warmth, from a deficient sense of brotherliness between men as children of God. The boundless rage of anarchism is associated with furious rejection of the thought of one Almighty Father of all; and so man comes too much to deem himself a self-sufficient sovereign, empowered and entitled to right his own wrongs, and remedy evils in his own time and way, whether those wrongs be real or imaginary, or those evils greater or less than those unknown ones which might result from violence, which is in itself a great evil.

But if we accept the substantially unanimous verdict of the human race that there is a God, who is, moreover, to a certain degree profitably knowable by and through the application of the best minds of the race to the study of nature and life; and if we can go just one step further, and accept as one of the most natural of suggestions that a creating Father should respond to, and go out to meet this capacity of His creatures for knowing Him by a revelation, then moral instruction, thus having a religious basis, will have a stronger ground to stand upon, and a higher authority, sanction and standard to which to appeal, than can be afforded by capricious and variable human opinion and

custom. With moral instruction thus grounded, the mind is, moreover, neither fettered nor left to grope in darkness, but, walking in the light of well settled first principles, is left in happy freedom to discover their applications to the many details of individual and social conduct.

Finally, having brought into the moral sphere the better conception of man, as not merely a rival in life but as the Father's child and hence my brother, not only is the moral judgment enlightened, but wholesome play is given to new and higher motives and purer affections.

After so much about the plan, now, second, as to the method of moral instruction. Shall it be conveyed only, or mostly, through the character of the teacher, operating, as indeed it always should, as a constant object lesson and persuasive influence, in both the major and the minor morals; in both the righteous substance and the gracious form of conduct? Or, shall there be also systematic oral or text-book instruction in morals?

one.

We declare decidedly in favor of a union of both methods. True, actions speak louder than words; and example is better than precept. But it does not follow that words and precepts have no use. Personal devotion to an admired, trusted and loved leader is one of the strongest and most generous of motives, as is seen in the case of great parties and veteran armies. Nevertheless, the leadership may sometimes be a bad Hence, without rejecting, or underrating the importance of the method of communicating moral character through the leaven of personal influence, the obvious reason for including systematic instruction in morals is, that the personal popularity of the best-loved teacher, acting winsomely on susceptible young affections and impulses, and so making it especially easy to do right, is not enough, without a clear understanding, gained by study, of what is right, and why; so that a measure of intelligent judgment, as well as sympathetic feeling, can be enlisted in behalf of well-doing and against evil-doing; and so that thus right will be done and wrong resisted under difficult as well as under favorable conditions.

The proper purpose of moral instruction being the formation of stable personal character, we would not, indeed, as has already been plainly implied, make it a matter of cold, dry, bloodless,

loveless science. Yet, at the same time, the human mind should not, like a satellite, be centered in another mind-which condition is just what causes one to be called a satellite-but, by intelligent judgment, right feeling and good-willing should, while not rejecting sympathetic aid, counsel and advice, be, as much as possible, self-centered in relation to its fellows, with respect to stability of virtuous character. Justice to the analogy here introduced demands that it be completed, so that all to which it points may be seen, by adding that, so far, with respect to character, as the mind is properly centered in aught outside itself, it should, as the planets are centered in the comparative infinity of the sun, be centered in the Supreme Being, so as thus to be more surely held in its proper orbit of well-doing.

If what has thus far been said be essentially sound, the question returns with added force: Why then is not moral instruction everywhere enthusiastically given? And if the humbug cry of "sectarianism" be really, as it seems to be, the chief hindrance to such instruction, we may well hasten on to the final step in clearing the way for that greatly needed instruction, by showing the needlessness of the cry.

Happily, this needlessness is easily shown, in two ways: It is shown, first, by a clear view of what sectarian instruction really means, coupled with the then evident absurdity of supposing that anybody would want it. Second, it is further and otherwise shown by turning from vague generalities and unmeaning cries on the subject to concrete examples of moral instruction, not on a basis of natural religion only, but even on a biblical foundation.

First, then, what is sectarian instruction? As everybody knows Christendom is divided - whether for good or ill matters not to our present purpose into numerous sects, which, however, group themselves according to their prevailing affinities. Each sect is marked, and accordingly sometimes named, by certain distinctive doctrines and usages. Moreover, each sect defends its distinguishing peculiarities by an appeal to the Bible, or, also, to Church History and to Reason. But, as to the Bible, it is here to be particularly noted, in behalf of a correct understanding of our subject, that looking at the Bible simply as one of the world's great books, it contains, though not in systematic form, a body of moral teaching, or ethics; and likewise, a body of

distinctively religious teaching. The latter, again, includes both the religion of development, or evolution; and the religion of salvation, or rescue. It includes the former in all that flows from the word: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart"; the normal result of perfect obedience to which would be the evolution from infancy of a man perfect in every particular toward God, toward man, and towards all inferior creatures and things. The religion of salvation, or rescue, necessary as it may be, especially belongs, as we fully and cheerfully grant, to the church, the home and the denominational school, not to the non-sectarian free public school. The answer to the question in hand is now ready.

Sectarian instruction then means instruction in the distinctive doctrines or usages of the various sects; or the presentation, especially of the religion of salvation or rescue, as held by each sect. Now, with homes, churches, Sunday schools, missions and denominational schools and colleges everywhere free to teach all these things, and with all desired help from the religious press, can it be supposed that any appreciable portion of the people want to have taught, in their free schools for all, the Baptist's insistance on immersion; the Congregationalist's insistance on the ecclesiastical independence of the local congregation; the Episcopal conviction of the importance of the episcopate; the Presbyterian insistance on clerical parity; the Papist's claim of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over his fellow-bishops; or Calvinistic election; or the Methodist's belief in universal salvability; or the Universalist's trust in universal actual salvation for all; the Unitarian's doctrine of the simple unity, or the Trinitarian's of the composite unity, of the Divine Nature? Indeed, we think not.

Yet, with none of these things, there is still left free, for the use and benefit of all, the whole body of moral teaching which flows, as from a fountain-head, from the word: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This, in turn, naturally flows only from the one higher word concerning love to God; since it is only as man is felt to be the child of a common Father, that he can be fully recognized as a brother and an object of affection, so that, as occasion offers, I minister to his necessities-taking care to give myself with my gift, and so fulfil the excellent word of the poet: "Who gives himself with his alms feeds three, - himself, his hungering neighbor and me."

We now, second, will show, as proposed, the needlessness of a fear of sectarianism in connection with moral instruction in schools, by means of a few examples of such instruction, though supported by the Bible, as a reference book in morals. Cannot the parable of the sower be well used to teach the importance of a faithful and wise use of opportunities for improvement, and of freeing ourselves from unfavorable conditions for it? Is not the parable of the Good Samaritan unexcelled as a model for all illustrative examples of, "who is my neighbor?" Could anything better show the glory and beauty of whole-souled magnanimity in heartily forgiving any offence in whatever relation of life committed, when it is suitably acknowledged, than does the parable of the Prodigal Son? And what an example of magnanimity, and of incorruptible fidelity, too, with wit and wise thrift, is found in the story of Joseph.

Or, having real examples, or supposed cases, for visions of noble ideals, what inspiration to lofty ideals of character may be drawn from the Beatitudes.

Or, turning to plain didactic instruction, what a storehouse of it for all occasions is found in the Book of Proverbs.

Or, finally, to mention a few particulars: Is neighborliness to be encouraged? Then read, "Withhold not good from them to whom it is due when it is in the power of thine hand to do it." Is the emptiness of boastful pride to be exhibited? The bubble is thus pricked: "What hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory?"

Is the vanity of doing apparently philanthropic or heroic deeds out of ostentation or obstinacy to be exposed? Then see that “though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

Now, without meaning to be querulous, it is impossible not to ask: Where is the sectarianism, or the chance for any, in years of time, or thousands of such examples of the use of the Bible as a reference book in moral instruction on a religious basis; or, at the least on a broader and deeper foundation than individual opinion, or the average sentiment of the school room?

But supposing some measure of sectarian difficulties to be imagined as possible, the case would not be exceptional. Such difficulties may and do arise to some extent in connection with