information. He is simply informed that the revisers know something which, for some reason, they cannot tell him, and left to infer that he is missing the point of the dialogue.

The conversation, as it stood unannotated in the old version, seemed so natural, so explicable, so complete, that plain readers will be reluctant to believe that it turned largely on the balancing of two Greek synonyms so del icately differentiated that the language of Tennyson and George Eliot and Robert Browning cannot reproduce them. It is a relief to find that Grotius was right and that science is on the side of simplicity; for this "subtlety and "delicate play " of logomachy are "altogether a profanation of that deep, abstracted, holy scene."

543

ARTICLE VI.

THE BIBLE AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.'

BY THE REV. PROFESSOR FRANK HUGH FOSTER, PH. D.,

OBERLIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

THE question of the Bible in the public schools is the question whether, in compliance with the requests of certain portions of the public, the Bible shall be removed from the schools. It has been common to seek an answer to this question in considerations derived from the reason of the case, and often with the silent but impossible assumption that such a method could bring the question to a settlement. There are advantages in discussing every public question as it may arise, de novo. tal principles upon which all governmental action rests The fundamenare sometimes thus brought out with a clearness not otherwise attainable; and an air of candor and of readiness to do that which is right and best is secured which goes far to remove distrust and promote a cordial acquiescence in the result finally arrived at. The disadvantage, however, is, that differing parties often start from radically different premises, and that cordial agreement cannot, in the nature of the case, be obtained. And the fundamental mistake is often committed of neglecting an element which will assert itself and vindicate its right to be heard, namely, the share which the past has in the character of every present public question, or the verdict of history upon the questions of the administration of an historic institution like a government.

A Paper read before the Ohio State Congregational Association, May 8, 1889.

We shall at this time confine ourselves principally to ascertaining the bearings upon the question before us of the historical situation. In dealing with the Bible in the schools we are dealing with an institution. Presumably it had its justification and now performs a certain well-defined service. What was its origin? Why was it established? Why has it been so long retained? What does it do? What is the relation of the government to it, and of what sort are the functions of the government which are actually exercised in the introduction and maintenance of the Bible in the schools? All these are questions of constitutional and legal fact, not of theory. The answer to them is historical; and that answer, as alreadysaid, must be had before any decision of great worth or permanence can be reached as to the propriety of the removal of the Bible.

The American public schools originated in the schools of New England. They were there a part of the great organization by which the State took upon itself the responsibility for the religious welfare of the people. In effect, if not in name, they were at first parochial schools, and the minister, if not formally as pastor, yet in the exercise of functions which were actually pastoral, visited and instructed in them, gave his advice, and exercised authority over them. The law recognized them as a part of the religious system of the people, and it was early incorporated in the statutes of Massachusetts that all the teachers of the young, from the professors in Harvard College to the remotest and humblest village school-master, should instruct their pupils in the principles of piety and religion as well as in sound learning. Hence in those early days not only was the Bible read, but more specific religious instruction was given. The Assembly's Catechism was taught, and it occupied a prominent place in that New England Primer which contained even in the list of alphabetical letters a re-enforcement of its contents. This was the system before the Revolutionary War and

after it. Massachusetts in particular was slow in shaking off the system of an established church, and the Catechism remained in use in the schools till far on into this century. But little by little the new ideas embodied in the religious freedom established by the Constitution of the United States became effective, and all exclusive support of any religious denomination was discontinued. Still, the substance of the old usage was retained, and religious instruction given in many ways, direct and indirect, by the occasional instruction of the teachers, by the implications and express lessons of the text-books, and particularly by the continued reading of the Bible and the offering of prayer at the opening of every school day. With the spread of the public-school system this observance has also spread, till, at the present time, it is believed to be kept in four-fifths of the American public schools.

Upon what basis, now, does the observance still rest? In its original form in Massachusetts the basis was plain. The State had established Congregationalism, and the peculiar religious instruction given in the schools was introduced there because the State was not only a religious state, but a Congregational state. All this has passed away. There is no form of established religion, and the peculiar doctrinal tenets of Congregationalism are no longer taught in the schools of Massachusetts or any other State. Why then is the general teaching of religion continued? The answer is because something of that original basis remains, and because the United States is still a Christian nation. It is founded upon the Christian religion, and the general truths of Christianity are necessary to its well-being as a state.

Under the influence of crude and unhistoric discussion of the subject, especially by those who ignore the historic character of our nation because they are hostile to the ideas upon which it is founded, this conception of the American state has passed from the minds of large bodies of our people. It may therefore be necessary to

dwell somewhat at length upon this point and to show, amid the various conflicting statements of the theorists, that this is not an additional theory to be judged upon its merits, like their own, but is a statement of a simple legal and historical fact.

We may see that it is such by the following considerations. The judicial utterance of Sir Matthew Hale that Christianity is parcel of the laws of England; and therefore to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law" has been taken up and applied to the constitution of the American State by the highest judicial authorities. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided in 1822 that "Christianity is and always has been a part of the common law of Pennsylvania," and the Christianity of the decision was further defined by the judge as "general Christianity, without the spiritual artillery of European countries; not Christianity founded upon any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." In the celebrated Girard will case, Daniel Webster in arguing against the will said: "It is the same in Pennsylvania as elsewhere; the general principles and public policy are sometimes established by constitutional provisions, sometimes by legislative enactments, sometimes by judicial decisions, sometimes by general consent. But however they may be established, there is nothing that we look for with more certainty than the general principle that Christianity is part of the law of the land......Christianity, tolerant Christianity, Christianity independent of sects and parties, that Christianity to which the sword and fagot are unknown, general, tolerant Christianity, is the law of the land." And the Supreme Court of the United States decided, Justice Story delivering the decision, that "the Christian religion is truly a part of the common law of Pennsylvania." The same judge, in explanation of the provision of the constitution of the United States which