absurd. Because we cannot Presbyterianize the State, it does not follow that we must Atheize it. But the State does recognize religion; and in teaching morality from a religious point of view, it is simply following its own precedents and conforming to the analogies of our national experience. As little justice is there in the plea that is sometimes made for the rights of conscience on the part of those, or on behalf of those, who do not believe in supernatural religion or, at all events, in Christianity. The principle of toleration is very precious, but it can be abused. Every man is entitled to the largest personal liberty consistent with the rights of his neighbors and his obligations to the Government. Every man has the right to believe or not to believe as he pleases. But he is bound to do his share toward the support of the State. What is best for the State is determined by the sovereign power, and the sovereign power among us finds expression in the will of majorities, and that will may express conscientious convictions. When the conscience of the majority expresses itself in favor of religious morality in the public schools, and the conscience of the minority in favor of nonreligious morality, whose conscience is to be considered? It is sometimes forgotten, in this and in some other controversies, that there are two sides to this conscience-question, and it is too often assumed that the conscience of the majority should yield. This, however, is a very singular departure from Republican principles. Why should we yield to the wishes of the majority on all questions except those which can be made cases of conscience, and consent to submit the conscientious convictions of the mass to the rule of an oligarchy?

It is not doubted that some morality could be taught without any reference to religion. A code of conduct could be drawn up, and children might be required to learn a list of things that they must do and things that they must not do. Ethics could be learned in this externalistic way, as some people learn etiquette. But does ethical instruction consist in telling children that they must not lie, nor cheat, nor steal, nor swear, nor get drunk? It would be a very uninteresting boy who would not wish to know why he should not steal and lie if he felt so disposed; and a wretched system of instruction which made no provision for a proper answer to the question. Is a boy ready to meet the temptations that will assail his integrity when he enters upon the work of life and becomes acquainted with the lax morality of the world,

who has been told simply, on the authority of his teacher's word, that he must be honest? The education which stops with the enunciation of moral rules will not make a deep impression, for when the boy comes to compare the instruction of the school-room with the experience of real life, he will find that there is some incongruity between them. Arithmetic, he will find, was very much what he supposed it was; but as to honesty, truthfulness, and the like,—now that his eyes are open he sees there are a great many people who do not live as he was told to live. And why should he follow the word of the teacher rather than the example of those who, in the new life that lies before him, are his heroes? The secular morality that is proposed would give him no answer to this inquiry, or else it would give him a false one. The question before us, then, is simply this: Shall the children in our public schools be taught to be honest, sober, and truthful without a reason, or for false reasons, or for the true reason? We may as well teach no morality if we assign no reason for it. Shall children, then, be taught to be honest because honesty is right, or because honesty pays? Shall they be told that they ought to tell the truth, or that they will find it to their advantage to tell the truth? Shall they be told that they must not get drunk because drunkenness is not respectable, or because God has said that no drunkard shall enter the kingdom of heaven? The possibility of educating the conscience depends in great measure upon the answer that is given to these questions.

And this matter of educating the conscience is a very important part of ethical instruction: for the most serious questions which we are called to answer in the sphere of conduct are often those in regard to which no rules have been laid down, and to which no ready-made answers can be quoted. The Bible has not settled these questions in the form which they assume in the varying experiences of individual men. The Church cannot settle them; public opinion cannot settle them. They illustrate the autonomy of the conscience. They must be settled by the individual for himself in the sight of God. The most important part of ethical education is that which properly interprets and expounds the place of the individual conscience. Nothing should be allowed to supersede the conscience. No pledges or promises should supplant it. It must be enlightened, of course, but its supremacy must not VOL. CXXXVII.-NO. 321.

9

be challenged. Herein, indeed, lies the difficulty of the work that is imposed upon the individual, and the grave nature of his responsibility. He must decide, but he must bear the consequences of his mistakes. Herein is seen the importance of educating the conscience. There is needed that delicate moral sensibility which comes only as the result of a deep religious sense of moral obligation and the habitual exercise of the intellect in ethical discrimination. The crude canons of utilitarian ethics will not help a man in making these delicate measurements. For this work he needs an intimate knowledge of the great ethical principles of Christianity, and the craving for personal holiness which will lead him to make constant application of these principles to the concrete experience of every day. This is an education which must be continued in the great school of religious experience, but there is no reason why it should not be begun in the school-room of secular instruction. Moreover, the true teacher of morality will strive not only to cultivate the conscience so that there will be a knowledge of what is right, but also to cultivate the character so that there will be a disposition to do right. But what can mere secular morality do toward cultivating a high ethical nature? Has it a maxim? Has it a motive? Has it an ideal? Has it a future? Has it a sanction? Ask Spencer or Stephen. Christianity says: love God supremely, and your neighbor as yourself. It says: seek. God's glory. It says: Jesus is the ideal man. It promises to his disciples personal immortality and the attainment of complete likeness to him. And it speaks in tones of terrific threatening to sinners. The new ethic has none of these elements, and, lacking these, it can have no transforming power.

The feeling expressed by the word "ought" is an ultimate fact in our constitution, and gives us an obligatory morality; but this feeling is inseparably associated with belief in the moral government of God. To preach an obligatory morality is really to preach a religious morality. But it is as important to know what we ought to do as to know that we ought to do it. And when we raise the question whether this or that is what we ought to do, we must have in mind some standard of right. Theists commonly believe this to be the nature or the will (as expressing the nature) of God. To teach morality on the basis of religion is then to command and forbid in the name of God. How, then, are we to know what God wills, or rather,

what is in accordance with his nature which is the norm of right? The answer to this question must determine, in a measure, the mode of moral instruction. We might trust to intuition. But this would not lead us far. It would give us the empty category of obligation, but would not do much toward filling it. We might seek the will of God by inductions based upon the general experience of mankind. But the ethical consensus of mankind would cover a very small area, and we should soon find ourselves picking out such select ethical precepts as might happen to correspond to a preconceived ethical theory. Or, finally, we might accept some one religion as containing a revelation of God's will regarding human conduct. This is what the people of this country have done. Morality with us means Christian morality. Teaching morality means teaching Christian morality; and Christian morality rests upon revelation. We cannot say, with the author of "Natural Religion," that supernaturalism is an accident and is not of the essence of Christianity; for Christianity, bereft of its supernaturalism, loses authority in respect to both ethics and religion. Christian morality must be inculcated as the known expression of God's will. Protestants and Roman Catholics are in full accord upon this point, though they hold antagonistic views regarding the mode in which moral instruction should be conveyed. It is not likely that the Christian people who are known by these names can ever unite in the cordial support of the existing system of public education; but it is certain that as long as they retain their Christian convictions they will express their disapproval of every proposition that contemplates a nonreligious system of ethical instruction.

FRANCIS L. PATTON.

MAKING BREAD DEAR.

The

WHILE only one bushel in seven of the wheat crop of the United States is received by the Produce Exchange of New York, its traders buy and sell two for every one that comes out of the ground. When the cotton plantations of the South yielded less than six million bales, the crop on the New York Cotton Exchange was more than thirty-two millions. Oil wells are uncertain, but the flow on the Petroleum Exchanges of New York, Bradford, and Oil City never hesitates. Pennsylvania does well to run twenty-four millions of barrels in a year, but New York city will do as much in two small rooms in one week, and the Petroleum Exchanges sold altogether last year two thousand million barrels. When the Chicago Board of Trade was founded, its members were required to record their transactions. dance of speculation has nowadays grown to be so rapid that no count is kept of the steps. The Board was lately reported to have turned over as much wheat in one day as the whole State of Illinois harvests in a twelvemonth. Its speculative hogs outnumber two to one the live hogs in the United States, and it is safe to say that the Board raises five bushels of grain to every one that is produced by the farmers of the West. Securities have become as staple an article of production with us as wheat, cotton, oil, or hogs. One million dollars' worth a day of new stocks and bonds is needed in prosperous years to supply the demands of the New York Stock Exchange, and its annual transactions are nearly thrice the taxable valuation of all the personal property in the United States.

One of the things that would be new to Solomon, if he lived to-day, is the part played by the modern Exchange in the distribution of the products of labor, and the redistribution of wealth. The honest industry that builds up our greatest fortunes is rais