We are not aware of any system of prison discipline that possesses or pretends to possess an “active agency for reforming criminals,” independent of Christian instruction. We imprison men to punish them, and we think the “_active agency_” of punishment is quickened by separation. And hence we hold, that apart from reformatory influences, separation during imprisonment is preferable to association, considered merely as a punishment. When, however, we introduce the agency which is “reformatory in the highest degree,” (to wit, “_Christian instruction in the hands of Christian men_,”) the comparative fitness of the two modes of imprisonment to receive and employ it, is at once revealed, and, as “Ignotus” says, the separation of the convicts is then seen to occupy a high place as an auxiliary to its influence. “The separate system is free, certainly, from many things which impede the reformation of criminals; from the perpetual distrust and perpetual punishment which are necessary to enforce _silence_ in _association_, and from the grosser vices of the older style of prisons, mutual contamination and hardening in villany. It allows a return to feelings of self-respect. It removes all possibility of combination for evil purposes, and prevents the exertion of that fascinating influence which the practised villain exerts so destructively over the novice in crime. It protects the penitent, in his first desires and efforts to return to God. It is something, also, as regards others less hopeful, even for a time, effectually to break the chain of their evil habits, and to compel the mind, however reluctant, to turn inwards and reflect, until the dormant powers of conscience be aroused. Beyond this it does not seem to go in producing amendment; and we are persuaded, that if the benign and saving influence of our divine religion were withdrawn from a prison on the separate plan, not a single inmate would ever leave its walls a whit more reformed than from any other.”