and picking the words from the brief vocabulary. It will be intelligible to a German master, very much as the Englishman's pronunciation of the Volapük sounds is, though it may make him smile. There is, moreover, a great fascination to a bold, original, imaginative linguist, like our American Volapükist, Mr. Sprague, in using his wings in this new medium. He becomes an improvisatore, without fear of critics or comparisons, and will chant noble rhythms, sonorous, canorous as Dante's, or utter himself in oratory or witticisms as the spirit moves him.

Scholars will be apt to judge that the success of Volapük is not due to its inflective and composite structure, or any linguistic qualities, or indeed to the ease of learning it, but to external circumstances. The demand for a universal commercial medium, a universal telegraphic language and news reporter, is such that many persons see money in it. There is a large number of persons seeking clerical employment who are eager to acquire any new knowledge or dexterity which may enable them to obtain employment or advancement. The same reason which induces thousands to learn stenography and type-writing leads also to trying Volapük. It is claimed that there is, or will be, a great demand for Volapük clerks.

It would be easy to prepare a commercial vocabulary selected from English words now current, spelled according to a simple and reasonable system, and with the verbs and nouns made uniform in their inflection. This would make a universal commercial language, intelligible at once to the ninety millions of English-speaking people all over the world, and fifty times more easy for other peoples to learn than Volapük is at present. The difficulty of introducing such a speech is national jealousy. If Volapük can overcome this, it may well spread. If it does spread it will, of course, be much modified, and almost certainly will slough off a large part of its inflectional apparatus. It will be watched with the highest interest by all linguistic scholars. It is impossible that any artificial language should be worked out and established in use in our day without making most important additions to the knowledge, the resources, and the powers of the race.

F. A. MARCH.

WHAT SHALL THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS TEACH?

ON the value of education, or its necessity for the proper exercise of the duties of the citizen, I assume there is no dispute. But mere intelligence is not all that is needed in the citizen, any more than mere honesty is all that is needed for success. Honesty may be abused by intelligence, but intelligence can never be abused by honesty. I would trust an honest man without education, as the term goes, a hundred times sooner than a dishonest man with education. Knowledge is power for good or evil according as it is guided by honesty and truth. Hence, the nature of man, his powers and duties, must be fully understood and accepted ere the value of education can be determined.

Man is a complex being composed of body and soul, so intimately united that he ceases to be man the moment they are separated. The soul receives its knowledge through the body, and the body its powers and direction from the soul. Education must, therefore, deal with the body and with the soul, nor can an education be called education, in the correct sense of the word, that ignores the soul, or attempts to educate the body at the expense of the soul, or the soul at the expense of the body. Man being man only when soul and body are united, education must take both into consideration. No more can the body be discussed without the soul than can man be discussed without God. Even as an abstraction you cannot conceive man without God; no more can you conceive man without a soul. Nor can society, which is but man taken collectively, be conceived without God. Man begins from God and returns to God, and on God man depends, society depends, the state depends. God must, therefore, be taken into account, both by the state and by the parent, in fitting the child for his duty to the state and his duty to his fellow man. Virtue and intelligence must go hand in hand if society is to exist or government is to be maintained;

this pre-eminently where the citizen is required to be a part of the government under which he lives. Morality and intelligence are the necessary foundation of free government.

Our public schools are organized and maintained to fit the child for the fulfillment of his duty as a citizen. But duty is founded on obligation and obligation on justice. Now justice is the basis of morality, and joined with truth gives us all that is known as religion. Society depends for its existence on truth and justice. Education must therefore embrace both, if civilized society is to exist and civilized government to endure. But truth and justice have their origin in God, who is their causa efficiens. Hence, society cannot exist without God, nor can society exist without truth and justice, in which morality has its being. God and morality are correlative terms. Education, then, must embrace a knowledge of God and a knowledge of his law, which teaches all that is known of truth and justice.

The state has no right to ask more than it gives. It demands morality in its citizens, and has made it a sine qua non for the exercise of the rights of citizenship. Having, therefore, assumed to educate the child and thus to fit him for his duty as a citizen, the state must teach the child all that is needed for the proper exercise of the duties of a citizen. We may object to the state assuming the role of teacher; but, once it has assumed it, the state must be held to the obligations assumed, or confess itself incompetent for the task of fitting the child for his duty as citizen. Let us now see what this obligation entails.

We are a Christian people. We live in Christian society, with Christian law and dogma to guide us. Our civil and criminal law is the outgrowth of Christianity. Our general and State constitutions are the outcome of Christian thought and Christian teaching. Our whole moral code is Christian. Our habit of thought and modes of speech are molded by, and receive their color and force from, our Christian faith. Christianity not only dominates our laws, but directs our actions, regulates our labors, and dictates the decisions of our courts. It also regulates our social intercourse, rules the family, commands the child, and is the guide and strength of the state.

Under this great dominating idea the state is taught its duty

to the citizen, the citizen his duty to the state, and both their duty to the child, the family, society, God. From God the state receives its authority, society only directing the forms by which authority shall express itself. God rules both state and citizen, binding each equally. The state is as much bound to rule for God and do God's work as is the individual. Nor can the state, by pretense or technicality, escape its obligations to God and religion, which is but the outward expression of God to man, just as law is the outward expression of justice and truth that existed ere law was formulated. Our political and social life being Christian, we are bound, state and citizen, parent and child, to the duties that Christian law defines, among which are our duty to God and our duty to the child.

The child is parent to the man, who as child is taught and prepared for his duty as man. Under the Christian law the parent is bound to see that his child be educated in the law of God. Under the same law the state is bound to see that the citizen be educated, in so much, at least, of the moral law as is necessary for the proper performance of his duty to the state. Now this moral law, upon which the state is built and depends amongst us, is Christian morality, which springs from, and has the cause for its being in, the Christian law.

The state, for convenience, and to save itself from the torment begotten of the wrangles of the religious sects, has wisely resolved to recognize no sect nor church nor particular dogmatic teaching as its own religion. But that does not permit the state to ignore religion, nor make the state independent of religion, any more than free will in the individual relieves him from his duty to God. The state lives by the virtue of its citizens, and finds its strength in their morality and love of truth and justice. On the child depends the citizen, and on the citizen depends the state. Is the citizen virtuous, the state is virtuous; is the citizen moral, the state is moral. If, then, we would have moral citizens we must have moral children, children grounded in the principles of truth and justice. This the state requires; this the state not only needs but must insist upon. The child belongs to the family, the state, and the church; to none independently of the other. The child must, therefore, be taught by

the family, by the church, and by the state, all three meeting in the schoolroom, where God and morality must hold the first place, if the child is to be taught his duty to God, his duty to the state, and his duty to his fellow man. If he is not to be so taught let us say so, and let the unsuspecting and the honest Christian element, that still so largely exists in our American society, know definitely that God and morality are to be no part of the education to be given our children in the public schools. Honeyed words will not do, nor will deceptive phrases conceal the threatening danger. Our public schools are not in danger because religion is taught in them, but our public schools are in danger because religion is not taught in them. With the results of the last forty years of attempted godless education amongst us, tempered even with the residuum of the honest relig ious teachings existing when we began our public schools, the result is appalling enough. In 1850 we had one criminal in prison for every 3,442 of our population, in 1880 we had one to every 837. Our attempt to educate children without religion is certainly not flattering, nor highly encouraging to those who so noisily seek to divorce religion from education, and pretend that morality can be taught without religion.

The advocates of godless education, such as prevails in our public schools, seem to be ashamed of God and his law, forgetting, apparently, that God cannot be successfully ignored. No man nor people nor nation nor state ever did exist without God, nor till we essayed it has any people ever attempted to bring up their children in accordance with the maxim, No God in education. The attempt to divorce God from education is our American idea. The result is not much to boast of. Irreverence, profanity, dishonesty, and the deep ingrained immorality that finds its exposure in our divorce courts and diminished families, are the legitimate offspring of godless education. If we will make our young reverent, we must teach them reverence for God and reverence for his law. Morality, justice, truth, are not inherited. Neither science can beget them nor wealth purchase them; they have their origin in God and their direction in his law. Morality cannot be taught, far less maintained, without God, and God cannot be taught without religion.