the contribution of the public revenue, the | ty years.

Originally, and for many years,

state contribution toward the expense is there was but one such school-at Dublin.

much greater. In England, the government only pays, on an average, one-third of the cost of the denominational schools, and is prohibited in any case whatever from paying more than one-half; whereas in Ireland the government pays not less, I believe, than four-fifths of the cost of these denominational-the non-vested-schools.

flock.

They may be said fairly to represent what the Irish National Board, at least in its better days, would have desired all the schools of Ireland, as far as possible, to resemble. In their common teaching they are not secular, but unsectarianly Christian; in their special arrangements they are, as far as need be or can be, omni-sectarian and dogmatic. The other 2000 schools are vested schools, They provide for teachers of different relighave been built out of public funds, and are ious persuasions in the same school, each vested as property in public trustees in the of whom is bound religiously to instruct National Board. These schools, however, are the children of his own persuasion, and for really as denominational as the other. The the attendance at the school weekly of the description which I am about to give ap- clergy of the different churches, each to plies equally to both classes of schools, vest-examine and supplement what the teached or non-vested, and will show in what re-ers have been doing, and to keep up the spects the Irish national schools differ from pastoral charge of the children of his own or agree with the English public inspected schools. In all the Irish schools, vested or non-vested, the catechisms of the respective denominations, in each case of the dominant denomination in the place, or at least in the school, are taught by the school-teacher. The schools are managed, all alike, by sole denominational patrons, who in almost all cases are clergymen, Roman Catholic or Protestant, who are checked by no committee or local board of any sort, and who, till within the last three months, could dismiss a teacher at their own mere option, with or without reason assigned. In all the schools, the clergymen of the ruling denominationsthat is, for the most part, the patrons of the schools-give specific religious instruction themselves; all the school-rooms are used as Sunday-schools; in nearly all, the chil-ture Extracts; they even issued and recomdren are prepared for confirmation by their mended for use a little work (by Archbishop spiritual pastors; most are used by the de- Whately) on the Evidences of Christianity. nominations to which the patrons belong At the same time, they made express and for denominational purposes, not only on the abundant provision for the instruction of Sunday but on the week-night. Finally, in the children in the catechism and special all the Irish schools, whether vested or non- doctrines of their different churches by their vested, unlike the English inspected denom- | clergy, and, under the clergy-patrons, by the inational schools, religious instruction may school-teachers. Besides the school-patron be given either by the patron or by the and the teacher, acting on behalf of the teacher at any fixed hour, any fixed inter-prevalent creed and sect, all clergymen were mediate hour, during the ordinary hours of to have access to the children of their sevgeneral instruction, provided the hour be eral flocks. duly specified and made publicly known.

The original principle of the Irish system, as officially defined in Mr. Stanley's--the late Lord Derby's-famous letter, forty-two years ago, was to furnish a "combined literary and moral and separate religious instruction." From the very first, however, the Irish Board of Education found, or at least believed that they found, that the moralities of instruction could not be practically separated from religious convictions and principles. Accordingly, from the beginning, they officially interpreted "combined literary and moral" to mean "literary, moral, and religious instruction." They provided lesson - books which were largely impregnated with religious teaching; they prepared and published four volumes of Scrip

At first there were to have been none but The only distinction of any importance vested schools. On this principle, however, between the vested and the non-vested the system took very little hold of the counschools is, that in the vested schools ministry. In 1840, the Presbyterians made terms ters of all the different denominations may demand a fixed time, before or after the gencral studies of the day begin, for giving instruction to the children of their flock in the school-room. In a large proportion of the vested schools, however, this is only a right on paper.

with the Board for the admission of nonvested or denominational schools. These, as I have stated, now constitute five-sevenths of the whole.

Twelve years earlier than the foundation of the Irish system, that is in 1819, a system agreeing strictly in principle with the origThere are twenty-seven Model Schools. inal Irish system had been introduced into These are the best schools in Ireland; but Germany. In practice, however, it was they are too few to influence the general found unworkable. Within five-and-twenestimate of the system. They have chief- ty years it had slidden and grown into a ly been established during the last twen-liberal denominational system. Such has

been the system in Germany now for many | The same also may be said to be the princiyears past.

ple generally adopted by the School Boards In France the liberal statesmanship of Gui- in England, but our lively controversies rezot, instructed and sustained by the philo- strict the common Christian instruction withsophic capacity and culture of Victor Cousin, in narrow limits. The imperial administranaturally and congenially inclined to attempt tion, in fact, except in the case of reformafor the French the experiment of combined tories or industrial schools, proceeds strictly instruction, of which the failure in Germany on the secular principle, the principle of paywas not yet declared, and of which the ex-ing only in consideration of secular methods periment was being made, in a spirit so large and results. Only the School Boards, I reand with objects so elevated and enlight-peat, pay expressly or properly for common ened, in Ireland. Nevertheless, in France as religious instruction. in Germany and in Ireland—in Germany earlier, and in Ireland about the same time-the experiment proved a failure. The combined system in France also worked into a virtually denominational system, although the denominationalism is not, I believe, so fully or impartially carried out among the free churches as some think it ought to be.

In agreement with my promise at starting, I have not attempted to argue in this paper, or to ventilate theories, but simply to present facts in clear relation to each other. Before closing, let me touch again upon the case of Holland, the country of secular education. Roman Catholicism forced secularism upon Holland about sixteen years ago, not without great division, and struggling, and controversy. But the condition and circumstances of Holland have enabled that country to work a secular system as no other country could. Unlike the popular masses in England, but like the ancient and truly indigenous Scottish lowland population of all classes, and like the New England of earlier times, the lower classes in Holland are all church-going people, and seldom or never omit to have their children instructed by their pastor and confirmed at the proper age.

Thus has the combined system everywhere proved a failure on the principle of united moral and secular instruction—that is, of united unsectarian and generically Christian instruction, both secular and religious-and separate specifically doctrinal instruction. All the countries of Europe, with the single exception already named of Holland, provide in some way for the denominational management of public elementary schools. This is so even in republican Switzerland with its free system of common schools. Nowhere is it more distinctly the case than in Germa-This is no consequence of the modern and ny, where the clergy of the three established denominations are state officers. The present controversy in Germany as to education arises from the determination on the part of the government to keep the state regulations supreme in the school, and to reduce the Romish hierarchy and fraternities no less than the Lutheran or the Reformed clergy to the position of the loyal executive of all government regulations. It is parallel to the resolution of all parties in England not to submit to the Ultramontane demands as to education in Ireland.

highly developed education of Holland. It is the basis of character and quality on which that education has been established. The lower classes in Holland—at least the Protestants-and the Roman Catholic population are always sure to be religiously indoctrinated to a sufficient extent by their priests-the lower classes in Holland generally resemble, and seem to have for generations resembled, in respectability, economy, prudence, respect for Christian profession, and, at least, external worship, our middle classes in England, and your people of alIn Ireland, as we have seen, the teacher most all classes in the States, except certain teaches his own patron's catechism in the foreign strains of immigrant blood. Cleanlischool. In Scotland, Presbyterian Scotland, ness and thrift are universal. Christian civthe common national teaching will, under ilization pervades the community. If a secthe act recently passed, be definitely religious ular system can be made to work in Holland, in a sense unknown elsewhere in the British it does not follow that it would be practicable empire. There the School Board and rate- in England. The masses on behalf of which built schools will pervade the land, and there there is the most urgent need for us to care the education given by the teacher is to be in England, unless they are Christianly innot only Christian and religious, but very structed and civilized in the schools, unless definitely dogmatic. The Bible will be used there they are morally, I will say, religiousas a common reading-book in the schools, ly trained and impressed, are certainly not and the Westminster Catechism, as well as likely elsewhere to receive any Christian inthe Bible, will be taught by the teacher to struction or training. Their homes are too the children, of course under the protection, commonly the abodes of profanity and irreas in England and Ireland, of a Conscience-ligion, not seldom of all that is coarse, and clause. In both Ireland and Scotland as animal, and degrading. much common religious instruction and in- I will be frank enough to confess, in this fluence is incorporated with the universal my last paragraph, abstaining still from coneducation as can be practically accomplished.troversy or discussion, that ideally and in

fundamental principle I am, as to national education, a pure voluntary, or, if you like, a free-trader. I hold here to the principles of John Stuart Mill, that great economist. Government should require for every child a good education, should take proper manner to have the educational condition of children-especially before they are allowed to go to work, whether whole time or half time-of electors, of competitors for public employment, tested, but should not undertake to provide education for the nation.

ties and complications of the religious difficulty will also disappear.

I am aware that what I have now said will appear very heretical to many of my American hearers. It is not my business to defend it. I will, however, say that Mr. Mill's principles are not, as I seem to see, inconsistent with the principle of the commonschool system of this continent according to its original conception and essential principle.

Meantime I venture to think that a large State, including among its people many degrees and varieties of belief, and doubt or disbelief, so far as it contributes by vote out of State Funds to schools or universities, would find it both convenient and just to ignore religious diversities and distinctions altogether, and to respect alone and absolutely secular objects, attainments, and results. It seems to sound right when men say that the contribution of the State shall be only to unsectarian institutions. But a rigidly and necessarily unsectarian institution is apt to become sectarianly secular, and even propagandistly skeptical and antireligious. To maintain such institutions out of public revenue, while liberal and largely tolerant, broadly catholic institutions are left unaided, merely because they are the property and charge of a practically and closely cemented Christian organization, seems to be a policy which at least is open to question.. I venture to doubt whether this is really pure secularism, or true unsectarianism, in principle.*

"An education established by the state," says Mr. Mill, "should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence." And the competition should, of course, be fair and equal in all conditions and respects. The interference of government in England during the last forty years is indeed to be justified, as I think, but only as exceptional, transitional, temporary; and on principles which Mr. Mill has himself distinctly laid down. "When," he says, " society in general is in so backward a state that it could not or would not provide for itself any proper institutions of education, unless the government undertook the task; then, indeed, government may, as the lesser of two evils, take upon itself the business of schools and universities, as it may that of joint-stock enterprises, when private enterprise in a shape fitted for undertaking great works of industry does not exist in the country." On this principle the interference in England of the Government during the last forty years may be fully justified. But I hope that another generation' may see the vast system and net-work of government protection and pecuniary aid, and direct interference and management in my own country, gently and gradually done away. With the disappearance of that system, all the varie-sible to attend.—Ed.]

* [The reading of this paper was followed by a discussion in the morning and evening on the religious element in popular education, in which Dr. M'Cosh, Mr. James Girdlestone, Rev. J. Carwell Williams, Dr. Haven, Dr. Conrad, Dr. Ormiston, and others took part. Papers on the same subject had been previously engaged from Professor Pfleiderer of Germany, Mr. Van Loon of Holland, who, however, found it impos

THIRD SECTION. THE PULPIT OF THE AGE.

MODERN PREACHING AND ITS REQUIREMENTS.

BY THE REV. JOSEPH PARKER, D.D., LONDON.

IN discussing, even cursorily, the question | preaching." What care is bestowed upon of modern preaching, my contention through- the manufacture of sentences! how periods out will be that in proportion as we follow are smoothed and rounded! how anxious the apostolic method of stating and apply- are many speakers lest by a slip in quantiing truth will our preaching be adapted to ty they should impair the rhythm of their this day and all other days of human sin utterances ! Is not this the "wisdom of and want. In order to wield the original words" which the apostle religiously espower, is it not needful to recur to the orig- chewed, lest the Cross of Christ should be inal method of preaching? Take, for exam- made of none effect? Are not these the "enple, the preaching of the Apostle Paul, and ticing words of man's wisdom" which Paul inquire somewhat into its substance and avoided in his ministry? I put the case manner. What did Paul, the Apostle of Je- thus interrogatively rather than dogmaticsus Christ, preach? Paul himself answers ally, lest I should even seem to bring unthe question: "I preach Christ crucified;" just reproach, or inflict needless pain, on "I preach the unsearchable riches of Christ;" some honest man. Am I, then, discounte"Christ sent me to preach the Gospel." nancing the highest uses of speech, or would Here is definiteness of conviction. The I exclude eloquence from the sanctuary of man knows his business-his one, simple, the Lord? Far from it. Seeing that we beneficent business and his mind is set can not preach without words, I would have upon it without doubtfulness or distraction. all words fit and seasonable; on the right He does not preach about the Gospel: he does hand of Truth I would set Beauty, and on not show how skillfully he can abstain from her left hand I would set Music, but as they touching it even where it seems impossible stood together in the smiling light I would for him to escape it altogether: contrari- say, Now abideth Truth, Beauty, and Music, wise, he preaches the Gospel itself with full- but the greatest of these is Truth-Truth ness of statement, and with a supreme desire is the infinite quantity; beauty and music to make it understood and felt. To Paul, are measurable and determinate elements. Jesus Christ himself was the Gospel: the There is a danger among us, and it should man was the doctrine; the doctrine was the be clearly pointed out-a danger of setting man: hence, the preaching was quickened up an idolatry of mere words, and so drawing by those elements which set the personality attention to the casket to the disadvantage of the Saviour at the head of all life, and of the jewel. What do we often hear remake that personality the complement of specting a preacher and his preaching? all being. Thus much, then, for the sub- That he is a polished speaker; that his lanstance of Paul's preaching, viz., a living, dy-guage is exquisite in chasteness and baling, triumphing, almighty, and unchangeable Saviour. Is it not such a Lord that is needed in this day, when men are mad in wickedness and have become the makers of their own gods?

We have inquired as to the substance of Paul's preaching; what was the manner of the preacher? On this point, also, the apostle speaks with peculiar and instructive emphasis. We ask him, How do you preach? and he answers, “Not with wisdom of words, lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect;" "My preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom;" "I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom." This law of speech would destroy ninetenths of what is falsely called "eloquent

ance; that his sermons are literary models, and that his composition is a study in art. This is thought to be complimentary-complimentary to an angel of the Lord, clothed with fire, and put in trust of mighty thunderings, a preacher of the Cross, and a revealer of judgment to come! God-speed to the eloquence of the heart; but as for the mere sentence-maker, his pulpit is a store of carved wood, not Lebanon or Bashan, not the mountain of myrrh or the hill of frankincense.

The probability is that the Apostle Paul would be impatient with a good deal of what passes among us as eloquent preaching. Would he not be ill at ease until the preacher came to the Cross and showed its bearing

upon human sin and human need? Would | In some quarters we have a Christ, but not he be so pleased with an epithet as to forget a Christ crucified; a character in history, but a doctrine? Is a sermon to be an entertain- not a sacrifice for sins, or a mediator between ment or a lesson? Is the preacher a cunning God and man. When Peter mentioned the trickster in the use of words, or a teacher name of Christ to the Sanhedrim, he set an sent from God? Let us have a clear under-example to all preachers evermore-“Jesus standing upon these points, that we may Christ of Nazareth whom ye crucified ”—that know the scope and urgency of our work, is the full style and title of the Saviour! Ruand do it mightily with both hands. inous mistakes may arise out of its abbreThere is a third question which the Apos-viation. We have now to be very definite tle Paul will answer in a remarkable man- in the statement of his name, because many ner, In what spirit did you conduct your minis- | false Christs have gone out into the world try? Hear his reply: -creatures of the imagination, spectres seen in troubled dreams, painted things made to order and sold for a price. (Let us in so foul a market-place remember that the name of the Infinite Saviour, God the Son, is JesusJesus Christ-Jesus Christ of Nazareth-Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom every man has crucified by his own great sin!

"I was with you in weakness and fear and much trembling." "With all humility of raind and many tears." "I warned every one night and day with tears."

Mark this as one secret of the apostle's power-he always felt his own weakness, and he always saw the pathetic aspects of his work. He trembled; he feared; he wept; he travailed in birth! Yet how few suspected the existence of such experiences! So bold that he could stand alone; so resolute that neither bonds nor afflictions could move him; yet was he heart-broken as a minister of the Cross of Christ. Paul did not attempt his work in an off-hand manner, as if he were superior to it, and could do it without strain or effort. It was evermore above him; it exhausted and mocked the mean sufficiencies of human resource; it scorched and consumed him like an altar fire! "Who," said he, "is sufficient for these things?" Think of Paul weeping! When he wept it was with "many tears."

This call to reproduce the substance, the manner, and the spirit of apostolic preaching is not a call to a narrow or superficial ministry. An inexperienced man might, on hearing the range of Paul's preaching, suggest the easy possibility of speedily exhausting it. 'Preach Christ crucified!" he might

exclaim. "Why, that may be done in a sermon or two!" Such are the mistakes of ignorance and vanity! The maturest and ablest men in the Christian ministry will testify, with tears of delight and thankfulness, that the gracious mystery of redemption by the Cross has evermore grown before the vision of their reverence and love until it has filled all things with its mournful, its holy and infinite glory. They will testify further that the Cross of Christ—the Christ of Nazareth-is the only key which can open the secrets of human history, and that

Who could argue like Paul, whose every word struck like a battering ram, yet who could cry with tears so many and so bitter? A good deal of useful work may be done with logic, but without pathos we can never get that special and indescribable in-human history apart from that Cross is confluence which touches all hearts, speaks all languages, and sheds the light of hope upon all lives. Pathos is not, indeed, one-sided. There is a pathos of laughter as well as a pathos of tears; there is a godly laughter, easily enough distinguishable from the merriment of fools. Argument applied with pathos means mastery the world over; argument without pathos may burn up ill weeds, but can never produce gardens of loveliness or Edens of delight. We must have the dewing, and his words are instruments of cruelas well as the fire.

Looking, then, at the substance, the manner, and the spirit of Paul's preaching, I contend, in answer to the question which is involved in my subject, that in proportion as we return to apostolic doctrine and method will our preaching be adapted to all the great necessities of our own and every succeeding age.

I trust I am not violating the spirit of an honest charity in expressing the belief that the time is at hand when the preaching of Christ crucified, without the wisdom of mere words, and with much trembling and pathos, will be the only original preaching.

fusion without hope-a wild, fierce fight, ending in the hopelessness of a beast's grave. He who has no crucified and redeeming Christ to preach wastes his little strengtli within the narrowest limits, though he may appear to have wide liberty of action: he can but talk at men; he can never speak to them, to their agonies, their heart-hunger, their helplessness, their dumb and vehement aspirations. His mouth is filled with mock

ty; as for his prayers, they are as birds with broken wings, tormented by their own impotence, testifying to the presence of an instinct, but never reaching the gates, of the sun. Seest thou not, O student of God, that the great, dear, sad Cross is everywhere, and, if thy course as a teacher be determined by any other meridian, thou shalt be as a thief among men, and at last be damned as a slayer of souls? History will show that the preachers who have taken deepest hold of human life have been most faithful to the Cross of Christ; others have had their reward for divers gifts and excellences, yet