he undertook." This is a high eulogium, coming from a southern pro-slavery Methodist preacher. The truth is that Mr. Bewley retained the views that all Methodist preachers did in the South when he was young, and what was in the Discipline of the M. E. Church, South, up to 1858, when the southern Methodists struck out of their Discipline the scriptural antislavery principles of primitive Methodism. Mr. Bewley

adhered to the Bible and the pure creed of Methodism without swerving more or less, until at last he sealed his testimony with his blood, which was shed by the influence of southern pro-slavery Methodist preachers, who abandoned the teachings of their better days and of the Bible, and who drank in the pro-slavery principles of the Calhoun school of southern politicians. Happy, noble man! He was thus "self-willed," and "remarkably persistent in efforts" to carry out his principles. But he has received the martyr's crown.

Mr. Bewley bore an excellent character with all impartial men wherever he was known. No man stood higher than he while in Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, or Texas. Bishop Morris, Rev. Joshua Monroe, and Dr. Cartwright have expressed their estimation of his honesty and high moral character. Many others have done the same. The M. E. Church authorities, whether conferences or bishops, would not tolerate a preacher who would engage in inducing even slaves to leave their masters. This never was tolerated among the members or preachers in slave territory by the rules or authorities of the M. E. Church, whether the thing in itself is right or wrong.

Mr. Bewley was decidedly opposed to slavery. When his sentiments were asked he always gave them, though he never obtruded his opinions on others, whether in public or private. He never directly nor indirectly induced slaves to leave their masters, or used arguments to render them discontented, either in Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, or Texas. He was a lawabiding man in all respects in every place where he lived. As to his being associated with John Brownites, or any others of that class, there was nothing in it. No such charge was ever sustained against him, nor could it be, unless by false witnesses. The whole and only charge against him was, that he was a sound member of the M. E. Church, and antislavery according to her principles and the teaching of Holy Scripture. He was

also a minister in slave territory, and a promoter of the M. E. Church in Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas. This was his only crime, and all the allegations brought against him were founded on this only, and nothing else. But while he was unobtrusive, to as his antislavery principles, he never declined uttering his opinions, or professing them, so that all who knew him were fully aware of his views.

And now let us glance at the present principles and measures of his ecclesiastical persecutors of the M. E. Church, South. Previous to 1835 no member of the M. E. Church ever uttered a word for slavery. The first public utterance for slavery was by Rev. S. Dunwody, in 1835, in a sermon before the South Carolina Conference. The same argument, in our hearing, was used by him in 1836, in Cincinnati, before the General Conference. Many of the southern members held down their heads in shame at the sophistry of the pleader for sin. His argument was, that God sent Hagar back to her mistress, and therefore slavery was right. The blundering sophist forgot that the servility of Hagar ended with her own person, as Ishmael and his descendants were all free; so that the child followed the condition of the free father, and not of the servile mothers. So it was with the four sons of Jacob by the servile mothers. The case of Joseph is the true type of slavery and the enslaved Israelites in Egypt. Abraham was an emancipator, not an enslaver. The law of Moses prohibited slavery to the Jews and the New Testament only repeats the law of Moses. He says, "He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Paul classes manstealers, that is, those who buy, sell, or hold men as slaves, except to free them, with murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers.

FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XV.-41

ART. VII.-OBJECT TEACHING AS APPLIED TO PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Calkins's Object-Lessons. New York: Harper & Brothers. Object Teaching and Methods for Primary Schools. Republished from Barnard's American Journal of Education.

WHO of us does not recall hours spent in the school-room, in acquiring the ability to repeat by rote words to which we vainly tried to attach a meaning? Who of us but remembers the tiresome spelling of words of three or four syllables, which were as strange and unfamiliar to our ears as could have been a selection from any foreign language? Happily for the rising generation, a new era is dawning upon us; the true principles of education are gaining ground and asserting their great importance. We are learning that books in the earlier stages of the mind's development are almost useless, and we now begin to inquire for the best method of assisting the little child in gaining a knowledge of surrounding objects.

Those of us who have watched an infant have seen that for the first few years of its life, if not too anxiously cared for, it is capable of amusing itself; a few blocks, or pebbles, will keep the little one contented for a very long time, and when it seeks a change, it is satisfied with something quite as simple. At this period we need give ourselves no uneasiness in regard to the mental development of our little charge; the old system of teaching its a, b, c's and b, a, ba's may well and happily be discarded. But watch the child a little longer, and you notice another phase of its development; it ceases to become so eminently self-amusing; the desire of occupation becomes more apparent, and the parent hears the frequent request for “something to do." We are apt to regard this desire as of little or no importance; but the leaving it ungratified is not simply a negative evil; now is the propitious time for implanting habits of industry which shall bear fruit during the whole subsequent life of the child. A child left to these feelings of listless inactivity becomes indolent, or, if too active in disposition for such a result, he verifies the old adage, that

"Satan finds some mischief still

For idle hands to do."

We frequently meet such children, and wonder at their precocity in evil. Let it be firmly impressed upon the mind of every parent, that when Nature expresses the wish for "something to do," the happy moral and mental development of the child requires that such desire shall be gratified.

But how are we to keep it busy? "There's the rub." The advocates of the object-method system would now place the child in school, and make those school-hours interesting; they are never to lose sight of the fact that the desire for employment is quite as strongly developed as the desire for knowledge, and both wants are to be indulged. Reading is not the only or most important school-business; reading is looked upon as the recognition of the printed forms of words already familiar to the pupil, not in this early state as the vehicle for acquiring new word-acquaintances. Further familiarity with words the child acquires by well-directed conversational lessons with the teacher, by oral instructions from her, etc. In these instructions the teacher is not to be the only, nor always the principal talker. Her task is to lead the child to observe for himself; to draw out an expression of ideas already acquired; to give new words when they are needed.

These oral lessons on objects are not to be mere talks about common things; an object is selected for a lesson. This object, whenever practicable, is to be placed before the child; he is to look at it, to handle it; he is to find out for himself its properties, the teacher acting only as his guide. Let me quote from Young's Infant-School Manual, (one of the papers published in a work mentioned at the head of this article):

Always keep clearly in view the principle on which this kind of lesson rests; namely, that the children should discover for themselves the qualities of the objects under examination, the teacher merely supplying the words needed to express them; for to tell the pupil that such and such qualities exist in it will not develop his faculties. Hence it follows that attention should be called only to the more palpable and striking characteristics, and that, if pos sible, the same quality should be traced through several examples, and even contrasted with its opposite to render it more evident.

We give here a specimen lesson from "Calkins's ObjectLessons" for this kind of instruction. The subject is water:

What is in the tumbler? "Water." [The teacher pours a little of it on newspaper or cloth.] What has the water done to the

paper? "Made it wet." [Teacher pours it in drops.] Does the water run in a stream when I pour it out little by little? "No; it forms drops." Here is a little milk; see if it holds together in a stream. "It makes drops like water." I will now tell you a name for anything that will pour out to form drops like water. It is called a liquid. Now, what may you call water and milk? "Liquid." Mention some other liquids. "Cider, beer, the juice of oranges and lemons." Look into this cup of water; what do you see? "The bottom." Now what do you see? "A white button on the bottom." What did you learn about glass? call it transparent, because we can see through it." What, then, may we say of water? "It is transparent." Look at this flower; what color is it? "Yellow." Now I have put it under the water; what color is it now? "Still yellow." Then if water does not change the color of the flower, what color is water? "It is no color." I will now tell you a word which means that an object has no color; it is colorless. Now what have you learned of water? "It is liquid, transparent, colorless." [Then the teacher in the same manner draws out the idea that it is inodorous.] What use have you made of water to-day? "Washed our faces and hands." If the water was solid like a stone, could you wash with it? "No." Then what do we need in an object to be used for washing? "It must be liquid." Then milk or cider would do, would they not? "No; it must be colorless and inodorous." For what else do we use water? "For drinking." Now repeat what you have learned about water. "Liquid, transparent, inodorous, colorless, and useful for washing and drinking."

We are at last learning that each individual acquires knowledge by passing through the same routine by which that knowledge was gained by its first human possessor. Let us apply this to the infant's acquisition of words. We do not suppose that a single word in our language was first coined, and then an idea searched out which that newly-coined word should express. We know that the process must have been just the reverse first the idea, then the effort to find the word which should mean just that idea; then the coining of the new word, if none already existing seemed to supply the want felt. If we apply this principle to the child's vocabulary, we shall never again give to him columns of words in Definers and Dictionaries to be "committed to memory;" but shall regard all such acquirements, if they remain in the child's memory at all, (which is very doubtful,) as so much useless lumber, never becoming a valuable part of the brain-furniture until the idea therein expressed shall have found a lodgment. Thus, take the word transparent. The child is furnished with some object