of knowledge, and gives a better understanding of the present, which has its roots in the past. The humanists are unsympathetic with the present; they depreciate the science, literature, and culture of modern times, and scarcely allow to Christian civilization any superiority over that of paganism in literary productions.

The fundamental principles of the humanists have been given by Karl Schmidt: "1. The ancient languages are the foundation of all true culture; a knowledge of them makes the scholar; hence they must lie at the basis of all instruction, especially in the higher education. In itself considered, the study of language is a means of mental culture, and hence has disciplinary value. But it is also related to all departments of human learning. Greek and Latin writings are the scurces of all learning, and whoever would go to the fountainhead must be acquainted with these languages. The original documents of religion, Roman jurisprudence, the correct principles of medicine, philosophy, the principles and examples of rhetoric and poetry, history—all have come to us from Greece and Rome. . . . 2. The study of grammar must precede that of philosophy, history, æsthetics. Grammar is necessary to a thorough knowledge of language. The method used in teaching the modern languages does not suit with the ancient languages. A dead language is well spoken only by a few. This ability is far from being possessed by all good philologians. . . . 3. A too early pursuit of the natural sciences is unfavorable to a thorough acquisition of languages, for the time given to the latter must be brief and dependent-adequate studies in them being deferred to riper years. The languages belong to the

schools, the sciences to the universities. 4. It is a mis take to suppose that the study of the ancient languages is hurtful to practical knowledge. The broadest scholars have the greatest respect for the ancients. It is not easy to name, in any nation, a distinguished author or scholar who is not indebted to the Greeks and Romans for his superior attainments. The too early pursuit of all pos

sible sciences at school results in shallow minds that are thorough in nothing. There is no thorough, scientific culture apart from the study of language."

The contrast between humanism and philanthropinism has been sharply drawn by Niethammer, a prominent humanist of the latter part of the eighteenth century: 1. Humanism aims at general culture; philanthropinism, at utility. 2. Humanism seeks to exercise and strengthen the mind; philanthropinism, to fill it with useful knowledge. 3. Humanism demands but few subjects of study; philanthropinism, many. 4. Humanism exercises the mind with ideas; philanthropinism, with things. 5. Humanism deals with the true, the beautiful, and the good, the elements of human culture; philanthropinism, with matter. 6. Humanism finds its subjects of study in classical antiquity; philanthropinism, in the present. 7. Humanism regards learning as a serious employment; philanthropinism makes it, as far as possible, an amusement. 8. Humanism leads to thoroughness in a few things; philanthropinism, to superficiality in many. 9. Humanism cultivates the memory, the repository of knowledge; philanthropinism neglects it.

The leading representatives of the humanistic tendency in the eighteenth century were Gesner, Heyne, Ernesti, and Wolf. They pursued the study of the an

cient classics with great enthusiasm and success, and succeeded in giving Greek a place by the side of Latin in the higher education. They raised Germany to the leadership in classical learning—a position it has held ever since. The college curriculum of England aná America has been largely influenced by the humanists. Their influence has been in the ascendant for a century,' and it is only within the past few years that a strong reaction has set in and forced a partial readjustment of the college course. The fundamental principles of humanism have been brought into question, and subjected to both scientific and practical tests. Many of them are found to be in part or wholly fallacious. Our knowledge of the ancient world is not dependent upon an acquaintance with Latin and Greek. It is best obtained in the exhaustive labors of great historians who have embodied the results of their investigations in our own and other modern tongues. The treasures of ancient literature the immortal works of Virgil and Homer, of Cicero and Demosthenes, of Horace and Eschylus—are accessible in scholarly translations, which we can read ¦' with the same satisfaction we enjoy in perusing the records of Moses, the songs of David, or the arguments of Paul. And the knowledge thus gained of ancient authors is far more satisfactory than that obtained by collegestudents, who struggle through inconsiderable fragments with grammar and dictionary. While there may be question as to the comparative excellence of style in ancient and modern writing, it is a fact beyond reasonable doubt that the vast extension of the field of knowledge in modern times the development of science, the marvels of invention, the truths of Christianity-has made the

literature of the past two hundred and fifty years greatly more valuable than that of antiquity. The current of thought, like a river, grows broader and deeper as it flows farther from its source. In view of the fact that the ancient languages are not the parents of German and English, but rather elder children of the same Aryan family, it is coming to be recognized that Latin and Greek have no monopoly of general grammar, and that the principles underlying the structure of language can be readily learned from the modern tongues. As the modern languages are not necessarily subject to the abuse of illegitimate helps, and as they call into active exercise every faculty of the student's mind in the threefold work of translating, speaking, and hearing, they do not appear to be at all inferior to the ancient languages as disciplinary studies.

It is now felt, too, that the modern world, in which we are to play our parts, should not be ignored in our courses of instruction. Considered in its external relations, the end of education is to prepare us for useful living. Great nations are moving upon the stage of the nineteenth century; investigators are at work in all Christian lands; international relations are becoming closer each year; the whole earth, bound together by telegraphs and commercial interests, daily challenges our thought. In view of these facts, many hold that it is not wise to require a young man to spend his best years in Greece and Rome as a preparation for intelligent living in the nineteenth century—the grandest that the world has seen. It leaves too large a gap between the college and practical life. Hence Latin and Greek, notwithstanding the stubborn resistance of the humanists, are being gradu

ally retired from their former prominence to make way for the mother-tongue, the natural sciences, and the modern languages.

7. EDUCATION IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

We stand at the opening of the nineteenth century, which has gathered within its embrace the fruits of all the labors, struggles, and sufferings of the past. The field of knowledge has not only been widened, but it has been brought within the reach of the masses. Mighty forces of Nature have been brought into subjection to the will of man, and are made obedient servants in the cause of progress. The seeds of human liberty, sown in blood at the close of the last century, have sprung up into a beautiful harvest. The gospel has been disseminated throughout nearly the whole world. The senti. ment of humanity has been awakened, and a serious calamity in any quarter instantly awakens a general and fruitful sympathy. Reason is asserting its rights in society and state, in science and art, while the law of love is more and more prevailing in all the relations of life.

(A.) PESTALOZZI.

At the threshold of this century stands an educator who commands both our admiration and love. In the long line of educational reformers since the Reformation there is perhaps no other that has done so much for popular education. The devotion of his life, as well as the truth of his pedagogic principles, has been a power in the educational world. He was not distinguished for