CHAPTER XLIX. THE POSITION OF WOMAN AS CHIEF EDUCATOR OF MIND.

One of the most important indices of religious change is the advance in the character of female education during the last thirty years.

Fifty years ago, to read, write and cipher, and a few accomplishments, were all that were attempted in the school education of women. A little history and one or two other branches were added in some of the higher schools.

It being assumed that the _equal_ culture of _all_ the faculties, so as to insure a _well‐balanced_ mind, is the chief aim of all education, it is probable that the mental culture of women in this country for the last thirty years has approached nearer to the true standard than was ever known in the experience of any other nation.

The training to the handicraft of the needle, even if only for ornament, the measure of domestic duty that most young girls learn to perform, the culture of the musical taste and the art of drawing, the combination in female schools of mathematics, languages and general knowledge, and the immense variety of culture from lectures and general reading, all have tended to develop the female mind on a scale of advancement and equable culture never before known.

The result is a generation of women well trained for high and independent thought and action. At the same time, it is probable that there never before was so large a proportion of the best educated women who were so decidedly conscientious and religious.

It is granted by all, that it is to woman more than to man, that is committed the chief business of training the human mind at its most important stage of development. It is granted, also, that in order to success in culture, both physical and mental, it is the first step to understand _the nature_ of that which is to be trained and developed. The first question, then, to every woman, in reference to her first duty is, what is _the nature_ of the minds given us to train?

In this light, it is as if a gardener were to receive some rare and delicate plant with directions from his lord to train it with the utmost care; his first inquiry would be, What is its nature? Does it require sun or shade? Does it need a moist or a sandy soil? Is it a climber, or a shrub, or a tree? Or, it is as if a young machinist should receive from his master a collection of wheels and springs, and a great variety of delicate machinery, with the direction to put them together and adjust them for right action. His first inquiry would be, what is the _nature_ of the thing to be thus arranged? For what _end_ or _purpose_ is it constructed? What is the _mode of working it_ which will best accomplish the end designed?

In like manner woman receives from her Lord the delicate physical form and immortal spirit of her child to train _aright_ for an existence never to end. She asks of those who are her Lord’s messengers for this very end, what is _the nature_ of this wonderful and delicate organization? What is the _end_ or _purpose_ for which it is made? What is the _mode_ of _training_ which will best accomplish the end designed?

The preceding pages exhibit the kind of replies that for ages have met these heart‐wrenching queries of womanhood. From most, it is shown, she hears that the _ruined nature_ of her offspring is such that she can do absolutely nothing to secure any right development. Others tell her that no one knows what was the end or purpose for which the mind of her child was made. Others tell her that no one knows what are _right_ means in regard to the training and action of mind. Others tell her that the mind of her child is constructed wrong, and that nothing can be done to secure its right training and development, but in some way to induce its Maker to re‐create it.

Meantime, also, her teachers are in conflict as to what is the difficulty with the _nature_ of her child, and what would be its right action, and what is to be done to secure its right development. At the same time, the greater portion of the teachings on this great matter are so enveloped in abstruse theological and metaphysical technics as to baffle the wisest in their attempts to gain clear and definite ideas from them.

In this state of the case many sensible mothers and teachers, all over the land, have adopted a course dictated by their own common sense and their experience of the _nature_ of mind, as discovered in their attempts to train it. In pursuing such a course, many of them have taught simply the system of common sense, leaving out entirely the Augustinian contradictions. They have in various forms of language taught their little ones after this fashion: “Your heavenly Father made you to be happy and to make others happy. In order to this, he wishes that you should always have what you like best, except when it would injure you or others. But when what you like best and want the most, is not _best_ for you or _best_ for others, you must always choose what is _for the best_, and in so doing you act virtuously and please and obey God. And just so far as you do all that is best for yourself and for others, guided by the teachings of Christ, and with the desire and purpose to obey him, you become a virtuous, pious and holy child, and a true Christian.”

In taking such a course as this, many mothers and teachers find themselves in antagonism with the teachings of the pulpit, the Sunday School and the great body of religious books, and yet they persevere. And sometimes they take their children from the Sunday School because the home training is there so directly assailed. And they would, in some cases, keep them from the church also, were not the theological technics so effective in protecting childhood from all comprehension of a large portion of pulpit teachings.

It is such intelligent, cultivated and pious mothers and teachers that go to their pastors with their perplexities and troubles, and not unfrequently find that tender sympathy which those only can give who have suffered the same kind of distress.