low the surface of things, and who has the real welfare of the community at heart, can do otherwise than warmly approve. We do not think Dr. Junkin has been very successful in the execution of his purpose; his remarks are often in bad taste, and rarely rise above commonplace; he does not go to the bottom of his subject, and give us its philosophy, the foundation of his doctrine in the order of Providence and the nature of man; but he deserves honorable mention for the earnestness he displays, and the energy with which he protests against the popular doctrines concerning what he calls "college education." He, however, commits one mistake. He makes the question quite too special, by making it a question of college education. He should have proposed the question in its generality, namely, the bearings of liberal studies, of high literary and scientific attainments, in the few, on the welfare of the many. The question properly relates to the education, not primarily to the place or means of its acquisition. Grant us the education, and we will not quarrel with you about the conditions of obtaining it; whether it is obtained at college or elsewhere. The real question concerns the utility or inutility, in reference to the welfare of the whole community, of an educated class; that is, of educating a few to a much higher degree, than we do or can educate the many.

This question we ourselves took up, and treated. with some little depth, from the scholar's point of view, in an oration which we gave at the Commencement of Dartmouth College, last July, on the Scholar's Mission, and repeated before the Alumni and other Friends of the Vermont University, last August. Our purpose then, as we were addressing scholars, was mainly to make the scholar perceive and feel his duty to the people, and to stimulate him to its faithful and energetic performance, at whatever hazard to himself, to his own ease, wealth, or reputation. We wish now to consider it, very briefly, from the point of view of the many, in its relation to the mass, the point of view from which the Address before us considers it.

We begin by assuming the necessity of education in general; that, whatever their native capacity, the mass are not competent to judge wisely and justly of the great matters which concern either their moral or material interests, without previous initiation, or preparatory discipline. It is on the assumption we here. make, and on this alone, that is founded the necessity, the propriety even, not merely of colleges and universities, but of our common schools themselves. And yet, it is precisely this assumption of the necessity of education, that the popular doctrine of the day denies.

The eloquent, erudite, and philosophic historian of the United States, in an essay on the Progress of Civilization, contributed to the Boston Quarterly Review, October, 1838, seriously, earnestly, and enthusiastically contends, that "the natural association of men of letters is with the democracy," and on the ground that the great unlettered mass are better judges of truth in doctrine, of worth in morals, and excellence in art, than are the cultivated few. We ourselves, about the same time, without intending to adopt this doctrine to its fullest extent, nay, while actually denying it in general thesis, not unfrequently so far contradicted ourselves, as to give forth many sayings which implied it, in all its length and breadth. Nothing, in fact, is more common, than to hear whatever transcends the common mind condemned, not only as unintelligible to the common mind, but as unintelligible in itself, and, therefore, as worthless. "Why do you not write so as to be understood?" "Why do you talk so the people cannot understand you?" "If your thoughts are clear and intelligible to yourself, you can utter them so as to be intelligible to the common mind." What is more frequent than remarks like these? Now, in all this, it is assumed, that the common mind, without previous discipline, without any preparation, is perfectly competent to sit in judgment on all questions which, in any sense, concern the welfare of mankind. Hence, he who should tell the people, that they must take time to study his doctrines, submit to previous disci

pline, receive the necessary initiations, before undertaking to judge of them, as whoso would comprehend the Rule-of-Three, must first become acquainted with the fundamental rules of Arithmetic, would be looked upon as exceedingly arrogant and aristocratic. What right has he to pretend to be wiser than the people? What right has he to assume that he can understand what is unintelligible to the people? Away with the aristocrat, who would set himself up above the people, and require them to submit their judgments to his.

ments.

Now, at the bottom of all this, consciously or unconsciously, lies the doctrine, that all real knowledge is spontaneous, that education is a deterioration, and that, as Rousseau says, "the man who thinks is already a depraved animal." Civilization, on this ground, results from and continues the Fall. The nearer men approach to the state of nature, the wiser they are, the more confidence may be placed in their tastes and judgThe child is nearer the state of nature than is the adult, and, therefore, the prattlings of children are profounder than the deliberate discourses of the matured intellect. Hence, the poet Wordsworth and the transcendentalist Alcott bid us sit down by the cradle of the infant, and learn the profound secrets of the Divine Wisdom! Hence, on the one hand, the babyworship, of which we have, within a few years, seen and heard so much, and, on the other, the profound deference to the superior intelligence and wisdom of the uneducated masses so strongly commended.

And yet, the very men who would thus raise the uncultivated understanding far above the cultivated, are great sticklers for common schools, for the education. of the masses. Who more eloquent, than they, on the necessity of universal education, on the terrible evils the more favored classes have inflicted on the many, by leaving them in ignorance? Who more powerful declaimers, than they, against the barbarism that confined all learning to the few, and kept the mass from the schools? Who more loudly boast that "the School

master is abroad," that the friends of humanity, daring as Prometheus in snatching fire from heaven, have wrested the keys of knowledge from the privileged classes, and that now science and learning are beginning to be diffused through the mass? Strange inconsistency! Scholars decrying cultivation, and yet boasting its spread! Nay, scholars of no mean repute doing their best to demonstrate the worthlessness of scholarship, and almost succeeding; for what can better show the vanity of scholarship, than the simple fact, that scholars can seriously believe that the unlettered many are superior to the lettered few?

We have no space now at our command to trace this doctrine, which affirms the superiority, in all matters of morals, science, and art, of the uncultivated many over the cultivated few, to the false philosophy which has obtained since the time of Kant, and to the false theology, which asserts the native divinity of the human soul, and to show how it necessarily results therefrom. Those who are curious in these matters, will find that it is the offspring of German transcendentalism in philosophy, of democracy in politics, and of the theology introduced, and represented among ourselves, by the late pure-minded, eloquent, philanthropic, and gifted Channing. We loved and revered Dr. Channing too much, we feel too deeply the blank his departure has left in our community, and especially in the narrow circle of our own personal friends, to tread with the unhallowed foot of criticism on his new made grave; but we believe, from the bottom of our heart, that his doctrine on the powers and worth of the human soul, as understood by his disciples, however it might lie in his own mind, has been, and cannot but be, productive of the most serious evils to the great cause of social and religious progress. It is part and parcel of the more general doctrine, that all knowledge, all science, no matter what its sphere or degree, is by immediate intuition, by what M. Cousin calls Spontaneity, which assumes God to be present in the soul, and the author of all that is involuntary and instinctive in human life.

But we leave this, for we have already discussed it at some length in the foregoing article, and shall have occasion to refer to it again hereafter. Our present purpose is more immediately practical.

This is, unBut to misscholar defer

The popularity of the doctrine we combat has grown out of its being confounded with another doctrine, which, to a superficial view, may seem to have some analogies with it. A prejudice had sprung up in the popular mind against scholars, because it was felt, that scholars used their superior advantages for their own. private benefit, and not for the advancement of the people. If scholars had always comprehended and been faithful to their mission, as educators, or as servants, of the people, the present doctrine would never have gained the least currency. The real thought which lies at the bottom of the doctrine in the popular mind is, that scholars ought to serve the people, to devote themselves to the progress of the masses. doubtedly, the true view of the subject. take this view for that which makes the to the masses, and to consult them as his judges, was very easy, very natural, in the case of all who had a horror of nice distinctions, and who regarded all efforts. to be precise and exact in one's statements, as merely efforts to split hairs, - unworthy the least respect from a man of plain, practical, good sense. Hence, what should have been stated, in this form, namely; "Serve the people by devoting to the amelioration of their condition all your genius, talents, and learning," came to be stated in this other form, to wit; "Serve the people by deferring to them, taking the law from them, and never presuming to contradict them, or in any respect to run counter to their judgments, convictions, or tastes."

The difference between these two statements, when they are brought into juxta-position, is very obvious. The first assumes that there is a work to be done for advancing the people, and that there should be workmen to do it; the second virtually assumes that there is nothing to be done for the people, that they are right