thing in which the entire Christian community is interested and which it cannot for a moment overlook. If we accept the situation as just stated, we must see that this subject must be treated from two different points of view: first, what are the schools doing and what may properly be expected of them, and second, what are the church and the home doing and what may properly be expected of them.

First, those who study carefully the program, the exercises and the relationships of the modern school, will see that it is potentially very strong in those things which make for righteous conduct and sound character. Any one who discounts the moral and religious influence of the public school, reflects seriously on the honesty, the sincerity and ability of the teaching staff. It may be assumed that in a large majority of cases the teachers are members of churches and indeed are among the most active Christian workers. A stream cannot be expected to rise much higher than its source, but if the church is a vigorous fountainhead of teaching and influence, its members must carry with them into their daily life the stamp of the Christian man or the Christian woman. I believe teachers as a rule are generally very sensible of their responsibility for right example and right teaching, so that personality, as it expresses itself in the school life, becomes one of the most potent influences for good. It transcends the influence of the pastor in most cases, because of the long hours when this influence is exerted, and the closeness of touch. In too many cases, I regret to say, it far surpasses the influence of the parents, because of the conditions which affect the family life in these latter days. The clergyman who has first been a teacher will, I think, appreciate the force of what I am saying. If he has not been a teacher, but knows teachers and schools intimately, he will find ground for the same conviction.

Another thing in which our American schools are becoming stronger from day to day is the practice of social virtue and the acquiring of good habits. Now just here you must confess to a suspicion that the kind of religion which some of the clergy would have taught is not the kind which Christ came to live and to teach. I have nothing to say against creeds: I believe in them. But for children I believe more in the Beatitudes and those simple Christian virtues which form so important a part of the teachings of

Jesus. For children to learn to be kind, courteous, truthful, loyal, punctual, faithful, helpful, forgiving, generous and honest, by practice day after day and week after week, seems to me of vastly more importance than the learning of the catechism or any other form of words which can possibly be devised. Every child has his battles to fight and to win, his questions to settle. His standing among his companions, and his record in the school are incentives to help him upward until he finally stands erect and strong, and perchance fit to be confirmed as a member of a religious organization or church.

But the school work itself is full of those elements which help to establish character: First, those forms of training which develop the body, known as physical and manual education, are of great consequence. Every well devised form of physical training, and every kind of hand work which trains the will, judgment and perseverance, is rich in spiritual value, and is not in any to be considered apart from the highest religious welfare of the individual. If any one questions this statement, it is because he is not familiar with the latest and best teachings of psychology and religious pathology.

Again, the subject matter of the schools, or in other words the truth which is the material with which young minds are fed and nourished, and in the study of which they are disciplined, is full of ethical value. Personally, I think highly of Bible reading and the Lord's Prayer at the morning exercise; but this is not essential when children are daily studying portions of literature which reflect the same teaching and the same spirit as the Bible. The study of nature, in her wonderful and beautiful forms, is truly ethical. It is a poor teacher who does not find in history constant opportunities for impressing the value of righteousness.

While some people have been declaiming about the godlessness of the schools and the need of introducing direct religious teaching, the schools have been quietly adjusting themselves to the situation, have set character as their highest aim, have broadened and enriched their courses for the sake of a larger ethical content, have called into service a class of men and women better trained for their work, and have almost unconsciously undertaken to supply the defects of home and society. In the last twenty-five years the discipline of the schools has radically

changed. The relations of teachers and pupils have become more cordial and sympathetic, and their daily intercourse is on a much higher plane, as regards friendly cooperation and sympathetic helpfulness. Home and school have come into closer harmony. Parents and teachers are no longer hostile. Education is seen to be a process in which all are not only interested but are actually engaged.

It now remains to say a few words about the special functions of the church and the family, as regards the religious culture of the young. Here, also, I am sure that there never was a time, as far as many churches are concerned, when they did more to encourage, inspire and sweeten the family life and to reach the children through Sunday schools and other agencies. I am not sure that there is any criticism to be made in this connection. If, however, any pastors or Christian leaders are putting a higher estimation upon formal, schematic instructions than upon religious purpose as expressed in daily life and conduct, they will be sure to differ with the views contained in this article. Furthermore, they are Ikely to be dissatisfied with the results of their own labors. Both the preaching and the teaching of today must address themselves to the common, every-day life, showing the joy of good living and the beauty of holiness. People, young and old, are not deeply interested in religious theories or doctrines which are not vitally connected with their experience, and which do not lead them to live happily and cheerfully their daily life. Where such preaching prevails, there are many empty benches, and the young are not within hearing distance. I will venture to make this statement: That there is very little in essential religion which cannot be taught and practised in our public schools; and if the churches will recognize this fact, then church and school can work together for the same thing.

Finally, nothing is more desirable today than that these potentialities of the school, to which I have referred, should be recognized and made actual in the consciousness and practise of all teachers. We may safely make large demands upon the schools, and the teachers will respond to them. To speak of the schools as godless I regard as a religious crime. They will never be godless as long as God loves children and rules the minds and hearts of teachers.

The Denominational College and the

State University

WALLACE NELSON STEARNS, B. D., Ph. D.

Professor, The University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

The present emergency of the State University along the line of religious education and the imperative need of action is abundantly evident. In 1896-7 the ten leading State Universities of the Mississippi Valley enrolled 13,000 students; in 1904-5 their total attendance was 26,000, i. e., in eight years they have more than doubled their enrollment. The present aggregate enrollment of our state institutions—and we do not here include the normal schools-is fully 70,000. This development may be traced in the diagram on the opposite page.

These students are men and women whose future leadership, influence, and financial prestige are certain to bulk large in the future of the country.

Statistics already published refute the charge of religious indifference formerly made against the State school, and the work of the College Christian Association attests the ease with which religious interest may be organized and aroused to activity. The pressing question is, What are we to do for the 70,000 young men and young women in the State universities and colleges? It is but proper for the denominational college to provide religious instruction for its students, and a non-sectarian school built up by private gifts can do the same without fear of criticism; but state support drawn from people of all faiths and opinions puts a new face on matters. Religious instructors free from denominational bias are well-nigh impossible to find, and anything else would arouse just criticism and opposition.

Here are 70,000 students. Preaching and pastoral visitation are not sufficient, good as they are. Something else is necessary. The University career is a critical period in a student's life. It is the period during which he is adding knowledge to faith. He is passing through an experience of orientation, and unless religious instruction keep pace with discipline in other lines, he cannot avoid invidious comparisons. The weekly ser

mon must be supplemented by the teacher-student element by regular, systematic, scientific discipline.

The present trend is toward the associated college, i. e., an institution-presumably denominational-located in the vicinity of a state university or other leading educational centre and cooperating with it. Standing on separate grounds, the associated college seeks to eliminate needless competition, supplements and is supplemented by the institution with which it co-operates, and