no God at all. Hence, as Monotheists, even if Pantheists, we must assume that there can be nothing greater than God; and we cannot see how any of the opposing theories pretend to claim anything equal to God. Now to apply this argument to the classification : greatness cannot be separated in idea from generalness. That which is greatest of these things must be that which embraces and controls the others, and must therefore be the more general or the higher in the classification of them. Hence, then, that science which considers God, must be, and is, the most general, and could have no rival but a science of universal nature, and even that only on the hypothesis either that there is no God or that God is nature.

2.

The next most general science must be Metaphysics; and for the following reasons: But the scientists ought not to want reasons or arguments for this proposition, because their most ardent aim is to show that mind is the highest thing in the universe. One part of them assume it to be the highest development of nature. If that were so, then the science of man's mind must be an epitome of all the sciences. If, on the other hand, we take those other materialists who make no God, no Creator, and no universal order, (as Comte once did), and give all the credit of the order of the world to the human mind that is able to perceive and classify its facts; then all science must be only an epitome of the human mind. Here then we have either all sciences an epitome of the human mind, or the human mind an epitome of all the sciences. And to this argument it evidently matters not which of these positions you arrive at. In either case the conclusion must be, that the human mind is a higher and more general object of thought than any one of the sciences, as it is equal in generalization to all of them together. If again, we leave these scientific theories and take the christian or Jewish province, here the argument is altogether different, but equally conclusive to the human mind. It is thus: Man is in the image of God; and of things in the world man is likest to God. 'Hence, as surely as God is the most general or highest idea, and the study of Theology therefore the most general of all studies, so surely must the study of man be the next highest or next most general of all studies. Pope's famous line, "The proper study of mankind is man," is therefore a mere beginning of the statement of the height of this study. And when we speak of the science of man it is obvious that at least the highest part and most general is that of the

mind (we are here speaking now from the christian or Jewish standpoint as above said). Hence there is no avoiding the conclusion that whether we argue from the scientist's or from the the theist's. standpoint, we will arrive at the same conclusion on this point, namely, that Metaphysics is the next highest or general science to Theology.

3- The superior positions of Theology and Metap hysics, having thus been established, there only remained to be considered Mathematics and Social Science, inquiring which of the two latter is the higher or more general. It will not be argued by any one that there remains any other competitor for the generalness than Mathematics with which to compare Social Science. Mathematics may be defined to be the science of determining quantities and numbers by each other. This is Comte's definition, by only substituting quantities and numbers, instead of magnitude; because magnitude seems to refer too exclusively to geometrical, or at least space-relations.

Now Mathematics refer not only to all conceivable space-relations and time-relations, but from its very beginning in the numeration table treats of quantities in the abstract, that is, abstracted from all particular cases of or applications to space or time. Our 1, 2, 3, &c., of simple numeration, refer to every conceivable thing in nature; and also to every conceivable human or divine NOTION about them-features as abstract as it is possible for anything to be. This would give us then for its definition, Mathematics is the science of abstraction, and therefore the ideal of all science. As Comte says, " it is only through Mathematics that we can thoroughly understand what true science is."

It sometimes appears in viewing Mathematics, that its absolute certainty of results, being so unlike the mere probablilities of all other sciences, must flow from the fact that the results are shut up. and INCLUDED IN the mere statement of its questions; and that an algebraic solution, for instance, is only an unrolling and getting to the end sought. But numerical and algebraic mathematics is not so much a process of reasoning as it is a process of instinctive ob-servation, having in view the one single result-simplicity. By observation, sets of terms, one set after another are eliminated.. And by observation, also, the choice between forms equally simple is made with a view to reach forms of expression which we most easily understand, or can most easily use.

Geometrical Mathematics is an exact science, because we, as it were, are only ideally moving the positions of forms or figures, like blocks of wood of a puzzle not yet sawed out; and as if continuing always to keep the same identical ideal blocks. We observe that the very principles of proceeding which are true in the relations of space are equally true in all the other figuring manipulations-even those which it is quite impossible to conceive of in any space relations whatever. For instance, starting with a, then a represents a certain square, and a3 will represent a certain cube or portion of space; but a represents nothing that is conceivable in space.

And then again, if we admit that proceedings already proved correct by relations of space and number, may be applied to all conceivable algebraic terms, we are still by no means through the difficulty. For we then come upon more transcendental qualities and proceedings, where nothings and infinites are handled as if they were definite quantities; and by rules and principles, the only perfect proof of which is, that the conclusions reached thereby accord with results already known, because reached by more self-evident although laborious processes; principles, whereby nothing divided by nothing is so applied as to settle problems in astronomy and mechanics, otherwise utterly insoluble. We can only conclude that a science thus touching infinity in its proceedings and results, and which is the ideal of all science in its methods, must in its generalizations come next only to Theology and Metaphysics.

And now, coming to Social Science itself; it is only one branch of Moral Metaphysics applied to the movements of society; just as navigation is one branch of pure Mathematics applied to its special purpose. And none who despise Metaphysics can consistently reject Mathematics from a more general position than Social Science i.self. Whilst those who accept Metaphysics and Religion can only give Social Science the superior position to Mathematics by introducing into the consideration the element of morality and of the future life.

Whilst then, in reality, Social Science is more general than Mathematics, yet, to suit the scientists' conditions, and also as an ideal and preparation, we are be content to give Mathematics the formal precedence, but not the material-essential.

But when we come down, from the consideration of sciences in their pure or more absolute conceptions to the applications of them, just as when we come from pure mathematics to applied mathematics; so when we come to applied Social Science, we find we have to consider all the different ideas, relations and prejudices of mankind; their most scientific generalizations and their most ignorant barbarisms. Hence it is that in its practical applications the science is so multifarious and has obtained the reputation of being the most general. But this superior generality belongs, as we see, not - to the abstract but to the applied Social Science.

Editorial Department.

EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE death of our lamented professor, James H. Cóffin, LL. D., will doubtless be known to all our readers before this number of the MONTHLY reaches them. We fain would add our tribute to the memory of one we sincerely loved, but we find it impossible to express in words what our hearts dictate. To those who have enjoyed his instructions in the class-room, and to those who, by an intimate acquaintance, have been able to see into the depths of his kind. heart, anything that we might say would seem but mockery. His modesty, his conscientiousness, his talents, and his consistent christian character, endeared him to us all, and we feel that we have lost more than a mere friend. Although deeply immersed in study he did not let this (as scholars too often do) be an excuse for neglecting the common courtesies of life. Professors are thought sometimes to have too little regard for the opinions and feelings of students; but such was not the case with him. He dealt with students as with other people, and, if by any chance, he happened to injure one in the least, was as ready to apologize to him as to those who stood on the same level with himself. He loved Lafayette sincerely and stood by her in her darkest hours of trial. He saw her emerge from the fiery furnace with new strength and beauty. He rejoiced awhile in her prosperity, and then went to his rest knowing that increasing glory awaited her. Lafayette will ever love to look back to him as to a father. much she owes to him cannot be told.

How

Science, too, is his debtor. His great modesty kept him from blow

ing his own trumpet, yet he was by no means unknown or unappreciated by the scientific world.

We refer our readers to another part of our magazine for a short biographical sketch of our honored professor and for a list of his more important works. He is dead, yet he still lives. His contributions to science live and his purity of character will live, reflected in that of many who associated with him.

IN our country to-day the question of compulsory education is being widely agitated. New York has waked up to the importance of the matter, and from press and pulpit advocates the change. No one can read the able arguments of Mr. Beecher without being satisfied that it is a matter of no ordinary moment, but of first importance rather. We notice that Gov. Geary, in his annual message, recommended the system, and that our leading State journals press it home to the consideration of our Constitutional Convention now in session. Sad exhibit: seventy-five thousand children attending no schools; forty-six per cent. of those registered as attending absent from the daily sessions, and sixteen per cent. of the occupants of our prisons unable to write. Cannot the statesman, who believes that the strength of a republic lies in the intelligence of the people; the political economist, who teaches that a State's prosperity and productiveness depend largely upon the knowledge its people possess, see something in the present question that may mutually interest them? We do not expect our MONTHLY to start the current of thought in favor of such a measure, still we feel that if our efforts may add to its volume when started but a single drop, our duty is undone until we hand in our contribution. Hear, then, our Constitutional Convention brethren, our co-laborers in the grand work of State Reform, a voice from the "hill," and let the consideration of this question be shared by you with us, and through our united counsel we think the matter can be straightened out. They have the system in operation elsewhere, and it has proved a success. Why not make the experiment in Pennsylvania? The American Educational Monthly, speaking on this subject, has the following: "They have compulsory education in Texas. The law requires that all persons under the age of fifteen shall attend school. A married lady in Houston, who has not reached the age that would en