way, and can carry out the system by methods of analysis, and by means of diagrams and symbols. That kind of thing which has been called, in the paper referred to above, "scaffolding," is about as important in our work as scaffolding is in building. How can you erect your building any quicker, or as quick, without scaffolding as you can with it? So I claim that the use of symbols and the orderly presentation of propositions is a matter of very great importance. I have found, in my experience, a great advantage from the use of these methods. Pupils, that had been taught for years, and that were troubled to understand the proper use of the relatives and conjunctive adverbs,-points in language, which are so difficult for pupils to get hold of, and which many of them never do understand, by these means were enabled to get, in a very few months, a clear knowledge of the right use of the relatives and of involved forms of expression. It was wonderful how these methods seemed to open language to them.

I did not intend to make any extended remarks, but I hope we shall hold on to this subject of methods of teaching language, until we make some good, solid progress in it.

P. G. GILLETT.-The course of the discussion has carried my mind back to the session of the Convention held in Columbus, Ohio, eighteen years ago, when a gentleman, who was then recognized as one of the prominent men of the profession in this land, pronounced the language of signs a mere jargon. I did not then understand the difference between the natural language of signs and the methodical language of signs; and if he drew the distinction it was not impressed on my mind so that I remember it. But I remember the extreme harshness of the remark as it sounded to my ears. I had supposed up to that time that the language of signs, being the invention of one of the latest centuries in the world's history, was one of the most perfect things the world ever knew. It has been said that the language of signs is the best thing that God has given us to aid us in the instruction of the deaf and dumb. That is one of the points in controversy. The deaf-mute children that we have to instruct have minds as quick and as bright as the minds of any of the children that go to our common schools, and what we have to do is to make them as nearly as possible like the best specimens of normal children. I am, myself, impressed somewhat differently from what has been stated here by the venerable gentlemen opposite, (Dr. Peet.) Unlike him, I feel a senti

ment of respect and admiration for the man who is willing to tear down even the structure that his father erected, if he thinks there is a promise of building up a better. I have a great respect for all that is old, when it is the best for its purpose that can be obtained, but when something better can be had, it is our duty to stand for and receive it with open arms. I think if our friend here (Dr. Gallaudet) has made any mistake, it is not in admitting that we have not the best, but in asserting that another system, which is yet only in its incipiency in this country, is not the best. That is a question that time and experience must determine; we are now engaged in the solution of that problem, and it is yet too soon to decide the matter one way or the other. But I stand by my friend (Dr. E. M. Gallaudet) in his desire for progress and improvement in the art of instruction, and say, let us hold on to all that we have, and improve upon it as fast as we are able: "Proving all things, holding fast to that which is good."

H. P. PEET. It is one thing to boast in putting on the harness, and another in taking it off. President Gallaudet has not shown results here, and results are to be determined by experiment and not by theory. I certainly desire as great an improvement in the method of teaching the deaf and dumb as any member of this Convention, but I certainly do not wish to hear the instrument, that we have employed hitherto in accomplishing what has been done, called a "pernicious" thing. There is no doubt that signs, after verbal language has once been acquired, may be used too much; the manual alphabet, writing, or, if you please, vocal speech should be employed, but, to say that signs are a nuisance, seems to me to be carrying the thing entirely too far.

P. G. GILLETT.-I do not wish to be understood as confirming here the remark made by Mr. Brown in the Convention, to which allusion was made. My position is, that we have not, in the matter of instructing the deaf and dumb, reached results that are wholly satisfactory, and I understand that Dr. E. M. Gallaudet is seeking for something better than what we now have. In that I join with him heartily.

E. M. GALLAUDET.-Dr. Peet asks me for "results." The primary department of the college at Washington is a very small school; its members are not counted by the hundreds, but by the score. We can not point, therefore, to so many bright pupils who have gone out from our college as you can, but I am happy to say

THE BEST METHOD

OF

PREACHING TO DEAF-MUTES.

BY FRANKLIN READ.

From the pulpit and press frequently comes a declaration of the fact that man is a religious being. Principals and teachers, who are interested in the cause of deaf-mute education, also publish their reports and essays to the effect that deafness throws no obstacle in the way of teaching deaf-mutes religion. The latter position, although being very correct and creditable, is not sufficient to induce them to be religious. We are willing to admit the importance of the fact that teachers are generally Christians, or, speaking particularly, they represent different denominations. The faculty of an institution is generally composed of liberally educated gentlemen, well disciplined deaf-mutes, and intelligent ladies who have graduated in seminaries, and this not only guarantees the best possible success to the cause of deaf-mute instruction, but also affords great benefit to the spiritual welfare of deaf-mutes.

ness.

Preaching to deaf-mutes is not an experiment. It should not be disregarded as an art or a science, upon the plea of deaf-dumbVarious causes have prevented it from being cultivated as an art. Thus deaf-mutes have been supposed to lack a mastery of social information, and to be unable to comprehend the various affairs of common life, and to acquire a knowledge of human nature. They have also been supposed to be incapable of being interested in profound, argumentative, or rhetorical lectures.

Men, indeed, are apt to think so, but what did our Savior say? His unconditional command is, "Feed my lambs." It is evident that he ignored any excuse whatsoever. Should the lambs be first

trained to the speaker's level, before we may preach to them? Should Spurgeon's audience first go to school before his lectures are intelligible to them? Since their education is generally limited, his lectures are accordingly superficial and familiar, yet instructive, interesting and impressive. Indeed, he frequently preaches doctrinally yet intelligibly. Should all the members of the Plymouth church be first sent to college on the ground that Rev. Henry Ward Beecher is too learned a pastor for them? He analyzes familiar things, or those which escape our common notice, reduces them to more particulars, and impresses moral lessons upon the minds of hearers and readers. He does not preach in a doctrinal form, yet his sermons are not merely doctrinal, but also more practical than those of any minister who preaches in a doctrinal form.

"Feed my lambs" was the most solemn command, the sweetest trust, which the gentle Christ left us. The pupils are the lambs, not the sheep. That they should be earnest and attentive, is indisputable, and confessedly important. An earnest lecturer makes earnest hearers. While we insist that the discipline of school should be in a healthful state, "coercion" or "subjugation" alone will not contribute to their spiritual welfare. As a shepherd sympathises with his lambs, and shelters them from the cold, rain, snow, and beasts of prey, so we should sympathize with the joys and sorrows of human nature. Colleges turn out many ministers, but there are few preachers. Why? It is not because their knowledge is mostly derived from books. It is not because they are thoroughly versed in theology; but the secret of their trouble is, that they know little or nothing of human nature. They are familiar with the speculations of the schoolmen, but utterly unskilled in the questions of practical living with which the poor people of their parishes are daily perplexed. To tell deaf-mutes that we have done preaching, and to charge them with the responsibility of choosing to be saved or lost, is equivalent to no preaching at all. What Rev. John H. Rice, in a discourse, said substantially of Dives, the rich man, that "nothing was said against him," in our view, was very bad. "He was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day. Very many do the same now. And it is not said that he was uncharitable or cruel. He did not set his dogs upon the beggar, but let them lick the sores of the poor Christian man who laid at his gate, and even allowed

his servants to feed him. After a sumptuous dinner, he permitted them to shake out the crumbs to Lazarus. So at present, the rich professor often fares luxuriantly, and then shakes out the crumbs to the Lord's poor and destitute! Dives, for aught I know, might have been an elder in the church, for there are elders who do as Dives did, and no more." We, teachers of deaf-mutes, in an intellectual sense, "are clothed in purple and fine linen, and fare sumptuously every day, and then shake out the crumbs" to our pupils. To speak particularly, our libraries contain choice books, and leading newspapers, and we enjoy the pleasure of reading on any subject whatever, and then we "shake out the crumbs" to the pupils. That makes the trouble. Many pupils frequently refer not only to the manner, but, also, the matter of preaching. They do not like to hear preaching. Why? Partly, no doubt, because they already know more than the teacher does, and they can learn nothing by listening. Partly, also, because the lectures are monotonous and cold. As to the manner, they do not mean the clearness of signs, though that is indispensable. Their complaint lies in the fact that most preaching falls flat and fruitless from want of life. The tameness of preaching is offensive. They grow inattentive, and insensible to the claims of duty, and do not attach importance to religion. We now observe that preaching in earnest is of the utmost importance. Since, if the preacher seems careless and indifferent, the hearers can not be blamed for their inattention and indifference. We again point to the fact that an earnest preacher makes earnest hearers. Suppose a preacher to be ungainly yet earnest, the audience will forgive and forget his awkwardness, for he is alive and aflame with his message. Therefore they would prefer him to a languid and indifferent preacher, even if he should be a clear and graceful sign-maker.

In the foregoing we have stated that prejudice on the part of teachers leads to the neglect of cultivating preaching as an art. In our opinion, the lack of enthusiasm on their part is chiefly hostile to the art of preaching. Excessive knowledge is a temptation or a besetting sin to them, and hostile to the spirit of enthusiasm. For example, a Presbyterian minister is learned, but a Methodist minister is earnest. As money is a good servant, but a bad master, so, much learning (which is not an evil in itself) should be extended to the audience with great earnestness. Also, the respect of men for an intelligent class of people and their indifference toward