H
ILLINOI

S

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

PRODUCTION NOTE
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Library
Brittle Books Project, 2011.

COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION

In Public Domain.
Published prior to 1923.

This digital copy was made from the printed version held
by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
It was made in compliance with copyright law.
Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
by
Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2011

The Compulsory Use of the Bible in Schools.
BY H.

L.

WAYLAND,

D.

D.

N attempting a brief enquiry into the question of the Compulsory
Use of the Bible in our Schools, I have found myself led toward
results so contrary to my feelings and to my preconceived opinions,
that I have often paused and re-examined the process through which I
have passed, in order to detect, if possible, the hidden fallacy. Though
I have not been able to discover it, I by no means deny that it exists.
I am but an enquirer. The only point which I occupy is an interrogation point. And I have peculiar satisfaction in submitting my imperfect observations to so candid and intelligent an audience as the
teachers of Michigan, confident that their acuteness will readily detect
any error that may lurk in the reasoning; confident, no less, that if
anything which is urged should have the commendation of truth, their
candor will not withhold assent, even though the position should chance
to be new.
In entering on our enquiries, it seems desirable to ascertain what is
the precise question under discussion. It is not whether the Bible is
a good book, a book of divine origin. On this point, I entertain quite
decided opinions. But this is not the question now at issue. After
we have decided that we are to teach religion in the public schools, it
will be time to compare the merits of text-books in religion. Until
that prior question is settled, any argument upon the character of the
Scriptures is not pertinent.
Nor is the question whether religious instruction is beneficial, and
whether it ought to form a part of a complete and perfect education.
I may add that the question is not one which can be settled by remarking on which side are the majority of good men and ministers, and
on which side are the skeptics and errorists. The character of those
who advocate, or of those who oppose, a measure, is, indeed, one source
of evidence by which to judge of the measure, but it is only one, and

THE MICHIGAN

TEACHER.

is by no means conclusive. Itsometimes happens that the great bt
of the wise and good are on the wrong side, and the great body of those
who are neither wise nor good, on the right side. When the question
arose, in New England, of the separation of church and state, the Orthodox clergy were stoutly arrayed on one side, while on the other
side were all the infidels, the Romanists, the enemies of religion, the
miserly, who grudged their taxes, and the vicious. Says Dr. BEECHER: " The democracy, as it rose, included nearly all the minor sects,
besides the Sabbath-breakers, rumselling, tippling folk, infidels, and
ruff-scuff generally, and made a dead set at us of the standing order."
And yet the errorists, and infidels, and "ruff-scuff" were right, and
Dr. BEECHER and the ministers were wrong.
The real question at issue, as I conceive, may be considered under
five heads.
1. Has civil society any religious character ?
What is civil society ? Itis an organization of individuals, associated for the promotion of a certain object. The character of the object
determines the character of the organization. And if an organization
be effected for a specified purpose, there exists no right to use this organization for the promotion of any second object. This second design
may be higher and better; but it is not the object for which the association was formed. A new organization must be effected, having in
view a new and distinct design.
What, now, is the object contemplated by civil society ? The protection of the life, liberty, and property of its members. This is all.Civil society is an indispensable condition of the continued existence of
mankind. Without civil society, existing in some form, however rude,
the human race would cease to be. It exists, therefore, and must exist, among men of every religion and of no religion, among Pagans,
Turks, Atheists. It exists where all the members are of any one form
of belief; it exists, no less, where there is no preponderance, but where
all the forms of belief are indistinguishably blended. To unite themselves in an association for the protection of life and property, is an instinct universal to man, since all men spontaneously recognize the desirableness of the end and the necessity of the means. But to unite all
the residents of a community, however small, in the maintenance of
any form of religion, has been, and always will be, found impossible.
It is not, indeed, to be denied that governments have existed which

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

have assumed religious functions, and have been based upon a religious
idea. Indeed, this has, perhaps, been the case in a majority of instances. The Boodhist, the Mohammedan, the Romanist, have all regarded religion as a part of the law of their several States, and have thought
it the duty of the magistrate to enforce religious observances. The
Long Parliament proceeded upon this basis, when they voted not to
employ any one in the public service, " unless the House is satisfied of
his vital godliness." So did the founders of Massachusetts Colony,
when they allowed no one to vote who was not a church member. So,
too, Queen MARY of England, and her right-hand man, Bishop GARDINER; so, also, th- Duke of Alva and his master, PHILIP II. of
Spain. All these would have assented cordially to the assertion of
Professor TAYLER LEWIs : "The State must have a theology, or it
must favor atheism."
And what has been the uniform result ? Has it not been to lead us
to the conviction that, in assuming religious functions, civil society departed from its true idea, from its legitimate sphere ?
If, however, we are in error; if the State has a religious character,
has " a theology," what must this theology be ? Evidently it must be
that of the stronger; in Russia, that of the Czar; in Michigan, that of
the majority. And this stronger party is at liberty, is bound (is it
not ?) to maintain its religion by taxation, by penalties, with no regard
to the protest of the weaker.
Are we not, then, warranted in affirming that civil society is not a
religious institution, has no religious character, no religious functions,
that it looks on man only in his present life, seeking only to promote
his temporal interests ? It takes no cognizance of religion, nor of morality, except as an instrument toward the present and temporal wellbeing of man.
But since there have been governments which have departed from
this normal idea, and have assumed religious functions, it is proper
to ask-

II. Has the United States any religious character?
tian government, a Protestant State?

Is it a Chris-

That such is the case, has usually been assumed as self-evident.An address made before the State Teachers' Association at Saginaw, in
December, 1869, (a report of which was subsequently published in THE
MICHIGAN TEACHER,) proceeding from one whom the teachers of Mich-

THE MICHIGAN TEACHER.

igan will ever regard with honor, for his personal character and his
prolonged labors, contained this assertion :("The Declaration of Independence is a Protestant proclamation." Was it with this understanding that CHARLES CARROLL of Carrolton, a Roman Catholic, attached
his name ?
If proof ~as been offered of the religious character of the United
States, it has been found in the fact that the Houses of Congress are
opened with prayer, that the government provides for the observance
of the Sabbath, that the officers of government are sworn upon the Bible, and that chaplains are appointed in the public service.
No doubt we may, in a loose sense, speak of the United States as a
Protestant country, meaning that the majQrity of its citizens are attached to that form of belief. So of a town, in which the great majority
are (e. g.) Methodists, we may say, " It is a Methodist town." But
that the United States is Protestant, or Christian, can not be affirmed
in any exact sense, in any such sense as that in which we can say that
Great Britain is a Protestant state, and Turkey a Moslem state.
In the effort to arrive at a correct result, let us consider a body that
is distinctively religious -a
Christian church. The object of its organization is spiritual, purely. Having a religious character, it has
religious tests. No one can hold any office, or can even be a member,
unless he conforms to a prescribed belief.
In all this, do we find any resemblance to the character of the Unitad States ? The United States is a voluntary organization, whose objects are thus defined:" "To form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the general defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." The organization is composed of persons of
every creed and of no creed. Citizenship and office are open to all.There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a Turk, a Romanist, a
Boodhist, a Mormon, from being President. We have had a Romanist
as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a Mormon as Delegate in Congress, and a Jew as Sheriff of New York county; nor is there anything to prevent the disciples of CoNFucIus from putting one of their
number into office, whenever they can muster votes enough. Mindful
of the diversities of religious belief, the Constitution expressly provides
that all officials shall swear " or affirm," and the custom prevails in our
courts, of adapting the form of asseveration to the belief of the witness,
the Romanist, the Chinese, and the Jew, being sworn according to
their own religious forms.

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.
We have compared the United States to an organization whose object is distinctively religious, and have remarked the radical difference
existing in the two cases. Let us now instance an institution which is
confessedly non-religious, and let us enquire if, between these two cases, any such difference exists. A bank is an organization of persons
voluntarily associated for the one purpose of trafficking in money. All
classes and creeds unite. They may very properly require that every
officer shall be sworn or affirmed. If the bank employ a large number
of tellers, clerks, etc., it may say, " Our employees will be more faithful, more industrious, if placed under moral influences. We will employ a chaplain to instruct them in morals, will have the labors of the
day open with prayer, and will close our place of business on the Sabbath." All this, not with any regard to the religious welfare or future
salvation of the employed, but merely with a view to their greater efficiency as clerks, and as a means of promoting the financial success of
the bank. And so of a railroad company.
But if they should prohibit stockholders from drawing their dividends, unless they first listened to a prayer and engaged in reading the
Scriptures, they would certainly travel quite outside their legitimate
province.
All that applies to a bank, a railroad company, an insurance company, applies also to the State, and pre-emineatly to the United States.
It has a religious character, it is a Christian, a Protestant, institution,
as truly as a bank, a railroad corporation, and no more.
Is it said that republican institutions are the outgrowth of Christianity and Protestantism? Without pausing to ask whether republics
did not exist before the era of Christianity, yet surely banks, insurance
companies, railroad and telegraph companies, are among the fruits of
Christianity, since they can exist only under a high state of civilization, only along with that commercial credit, that faith between man
and man, which are among the results of Protestant Christianity.
The United States employs chaplains, not with any regard to the
truth or falseness of the religion which they profess. It employs Lutheran, Romanist, Unitarian, Evangelical, and would be bound, I ap.prehend, to employ a Jew or a Mohammedan, if such was the prevailing faith of the regiment to be served. The chaplain is employed,
like the band and the surgeon, merely to promote the present happiness and the efficiency of the troops.
That the United States has no religious character, is strongly and

THE MICHIGAN

TEACHER.

truly urged by those who desire the amendment of the Constitution so
that the first article shall read : " We, the people of the United States,
[acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power
in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the
nations, and his revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government,] to form a more pefect union," etc.They hold-wrongly, as I think -that the United States ought to
have a religious character : they hold--rightly, as I think- that it
has none, as at present organized.
The Supreme Court of Ohio have decided : "Neither Christianity,
nor any other religion, is a part of the law of this State ;" and with
equal truth, we apprehend, the same assertion might be made of the
entire United States.
III. Has the Common School any religious character ?
The common school is but the agent of the civil society for the
promotion of education, as the court is its agent for the interpretation of law, and the constabulary for the execution of law. To no one
of these agents can the principal give any powers, or any character, of which he is not himself possessed. If, then, the state has no
religious character, it does not appear that it can impart any religious
character, or duties, or powers, to the common school, which is the creation of the state. It would appear that the public schools are not
Christian, are not Protestant; that they have no religious shade whatever.
If, however, you assert that these schools have a religious character,
that they are Protestant schools, then you justify the Catholic in his
opposition to them, and in his unwillingness to be taxed for their support. If it is said, "That is a very imperfect education which ignores
religion," very likely; but then, if this is the only education, under
the circumstances of the case, that the public school can give, why,
surely, it is a great deal better than none at all.
But the schools thus organized will be "godless schools." Not
more godless than a bank, an army, a school of design, a hospital, a
court-in fact, than civil society itself.
I will add, at this point, that I more than doubt the right of civil
society, as represented by our legislatures, to make any donations, or
appropriations, to any denominational or sectarian schools or colleges.
In so far as those institutions are supported by the public funds, they

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

become public schools, become the agents of the state, and must forego
their denominational character. While they retain this character,
they can lay no claim to the public funds. It is, of course, very pleasant for the college of our own denomination to have help from the
state; but, carry out the principle, follow the precedent, extend the
same aid to Romanist and to all other schools, and where shall we be ?
Hence it seemed to me that the article in the rejected Constitution of
Michigan, forbidding the legislature to grant aid to any denominational
schools, was wise and just. Upon this ground, as it seems to me, rests
the argument for the existence of our Christian and denominational
colleges. In all our State institutions, alike in the primary school and
in the University, Christianity holds a place only by sufferance, and
only so long as no appreciable portion of the community object to
its presence. If we want Christian institutions, we must create them
for ourselves, by voluntary contribution.
IV. We are brought to another inquiry, which, however, is partly
covered by the preceding remarksHas civil society a right, in a school sustained by the public funds, to
compel a parent to surrender his child to the influence of religious instruction and worship, against which the parent has conscientious objections ?
I say " in a school ;" since, in a prison, the inmate may be supposed to have waived, or forfeited, the right of conscience, as also of
personal liberty. [ say ' in a school sustained by the public funds ;"
since a private school, or a denominational school, stands on entirely
different ground. I say " the parent;" and thus dispose of the quibble, " how idle to imagine that the child can have any scruple in the
matter." It is with the parent that society has to deal. During the
youth of the child, the parent's right to act, to choose, for the child, is
Sunquestionable. IHe may, indeed, use this right unwisely, injuriously,
as he may his right to vote, to hold property; but that is his look-out,
not ours, not society's.
" But surely it is not right for him to prevent his child from hearing the Bible read ; to bring him up an atheist, or an errorist." Let us
make a distinction. I have a right, under the constitution of civil society, to do anything that does not interfere with the liberties and
rights of my fellow men. It is right for me to do only that which will,
in the highest degree, please God or bless mankind.

THE MICHIGAN TEACHER.

But do we compel the parent ? He may withhold his child from
school. But surely it is compulsion to say," You must do this, or you
must forego the advantages of the free school." The parent is a stockholder in the Bank of Civil Society. The free education of his children is one of his dividends. If you deprive him of it, you fine him to
just that amount; and this is compulsion. And the right to use one
degree of compulsion, to impose one degree of penalty, involves the
right to use another and further degree.? If the principle is admitted, where will you stop ?
It will hardly be denied that the reading of the Bible, accompanied
by the singing of hymns, and by prayer, constitutes religious instruction and religious worship; of a very imperfect kind, no doubt, yet
instruction and worship no less.
That it is worship, is denied by the majority of the Justices of the
Superior Court of Cincinnati. But the reply of Judge TAFT, thle
dissenting Justice, seems to me unanswerable. " What, then, is the
character of tihe morning exercise of reading a passage in the Bible,
and appropriate singing in the schools daily ? I think that we are
bound to regard it bothas an act of worship and as a lesson of religious instruction.

.

.

.

It is intended to raise the thoughts of the

participants to the Father of all. . . It is as a special message from
him that the passage of the Bible is read. And so, I am bound to suppose, the plaintiffs regard it. For, if it was simply as an ordinary
reading lesson, it would not have been claimed that it was not subject,
like other reading lessons, to be changed, or discontinued, under the
rules of the Board."
I venture, with all possible humility, the opinion that the late decision of the Superior Court of Cincinnati is contrary to the Constitution
of Ohio. The exercises just referred to are a form of worship. The
pupils are compelled to attend the place of worship. The tax-payers
are compelled to maintain the form of worship. But the Constitution
of Ohio expressly provides that "no person shall be compelled to attend,
erect, or support, any place of worship, or maintain any form of wor4 But there can be no conscientious scruples, or objections.
How
can any one's conscience be violated, or offended, by reading or hearing
the pure precepts of Jesus, or the aspirations of David, or by singing
the simple hymns composed for the Sunday-school ?"
In matters that lie within the sphere of conscience, we have no right

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

to dispute, or to deny, what profess to be religious scruples. If, indeed, a Thug of East India claims that his duty to the goddess Kali
calls on him to strangle travelers, and that it would violate his conscience to forego this religious rite, the reply is obvious: "This is
outside the sphere of conscientious scruples." But if he say, " I can
not, in conscience, read your religious books, or join in prayer to your
God, or listen to the words of your Messiah," then we can not force him,
except by prostrating the safeguards which alone guarantee the religious liberty of us all. Assuredly, the religious instruction and worship, under the influence of which a man shall place his children, is a
matter lying within the domain of conscientious scruples.
" But they are in error; and how can conscience be pleaded in favor
of error, and against the truth ?" This makes their case all the
stronger. It is always error that needs and that receives the benefits
of toleration, of religious liberty. Truth does not need toleration.
since truth (for all practical purposes, and so far as relates to the action of society) is the opinion of the majority, and can look out for
itself * It is error which is the opinion of the minority, and which
needs toleration and protection.
It may be added that many persons who have no objection to a religious exercise, voluntarily performed, would have scruples the moment
it was made compulsory, and was maintained at the public charge. A
person may have no conscientious objection to the Anglican forms,
and may unite in them when occasion offers, who would yet vie with
the Scotch Covenanters in a conscientious opposition to them, the moment they became compulsory, and were sustained by taxation.
If it is said that the Bible is not sectarian, yet the New Testament
is sectarian to the Jew, and the translation of the Bible may be, and
usually is, sectarian.
There is infinite depth of meaning and width of application in the
precept, "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to
them likewise." Reverse the position. Suppose that a majority of
the voters were Romanists, and that the School Board should direct
that the exercises of each day in school should be opened with the
*Truth, in a popular sense, is that which any one treweth, or thinketh. If
any one speaks just as he trews, or thinks, we say that he speaks the truth.
But it by no means follows that, as HoRNE TOOKE says, "There is no such
thing as eternal, immutable, unchanging truth."

I speak of it now only as

practically affecting our actions, and the actions of soeiety.

The only truth

that a community can act upon, is the judgment of the majority.

10

THE MICHIGAN

TEACHER.

reading of a passage from the Douay version, with the singing of
hymns from the Catholic hymn-book, and with the offering of prayer
according to the Romanist ritual. Now, would you and I feel, or
should we not, that our rights of conscience were violated ?
If I have rightly stated the question, and if the matter now under
consideration comes under the question as stated, there would seem
little need of further argument. I will, however, proceed to ask V. Supposing that the right exists, is it wise to exercise it?
It is not wise to sacrifice the whole for a part, to sacrifice the main
object for one that is incidental. If the whole goes, what becomes of
the part ? If, by retaining in the schools the formal and compulsory
use of the Bible, we should array against the schools the entire force
of the Romanist party, and of all who oppose religious instruction in
any form, and should give to them as a rallying cry, " No interference
with conscience ;" if we should afford them a claim on the sympathy of
all who advocate the fullest religious toleration and liberty, it can not
be denied that we should subject our schools to perils, most real and
alarming.
The destruction of our school system would be bad enough; but
there is a worse contingency. Suppose we inaugurate the principle
that the public schools are to be the vehicle of the religious instruction
and worship approved by the majority; and suppose (as is predicted
by some persons) that the Romanists have a majority by the end of
this century; suppose, further, that they should practice on the principle we have established, (as they unquestionably would) : and then
where would our schools be ?
But any peril is to be incurred, if the cause is sufficient to warrant
it. Is the risk in this case justified by the object ? We propose to
subject the schools to this peril in order to retain - what ? The pro
forma reading of a few verses of Scripture, combined with (perhaps)
singing and the offering of prayer.
Mr. FRASER, the Assistant Commissioner of the Schools Enquiry
Commission, in his Report to the British Parliament, upon "The
Common School System of the United States," thus speaks of the religious instruction imparted in our schools:
"The disjointed, inconsecutive way in which the Bible is read-today, a -Psalm; to-morrow, a section from a gospel; the day after, a
paragraph from one of the letters of St. Paul; - in all cases unaccompanied by a single word in the shape of note, explanation, or comment,

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

11

can not, and does not, amount to anything that can be called systematic religious instruction."
Add to this that the teacher conducting these exercises may be a
Christian believer, whobe exemplary morality, blameless life, and devout spirit, shall commend the divine words that are uttered; or he man not.
Does the compulsory use of the Bible in the public schools really advance the interests of religion, and would religion suffer from the disuse of the practice ? Without attempting a full reply to these inquiries, we will venture one or two suggestions. I might offer the remark
that true religion is never advanced by the violation, in however slight
a degree, of the rights of any one; but I am precluded from urging
this suggestion, since I am now supposing that no right is violated, but
rather that the right to compel exists.
But I may assert that religion has never owed any real advantage to
compulsion, or compulsory observances. The very thought of compulsion arouses within the soul of him, whom we attempt to compel, a
feeling of resistance, against which the force of truth and of argument
proves powerless. " Those who teach to rulers the duty of employing
power to propagate truth, would do well to remember that falsehood,
though no match for truth alone, has often been found more than a
match for truth and power together."* And, in words equally profound, the calm, wise poet of Rydal Mount has told us:
"Bodies fall by wild sword law;
"But who would force a soul, tilts with a straw
"Against a champion, cased in armor."

I may add that religion has always lost vastly more than it has ever
gained, by the patronage of the civil power. The support afforded by
the state encumbers Christianity rather than helps it. Religion is upheld by the state, as a man is upheld by the pillory. The sense of individual responsibility, which properly belongs to each disciple, and
which is the potent source of religious activity, is lessened. Each person feels that his work is done, in part at least, by the state.
And hence the absolute severance of the civil power from spiritual
functions, has always proved an inconceivable blessing to the cause of
religion, showing the groundlessness of the fears with which good men
had anticipated the change. In allusion to the final and complete severance of church from state in Connecticut, the daughter and biogra*MAcAULAY,

"Church

and State."

12

THE MICHIGAN TEACHER.

pher of Dr. BEECHER says: " On the day after the election, I saw
father sitting with his head drooping on his breast, and his arms hanging down. ' Father,' said I, 'what are you thinking of ?' He anDr. B. writes : " It was
swered solemnly, ' The CHURCH OF GOD.'"
and suffering. It was as dark a day as ever
a time of great depression
I saw. The injury done to the cause of Christ, as we then supposed,
was irreparable. For several days, I suffered what no tongue can tell,
for the best thing that ever happened to the State of Connecticut." It
cut the churches loose from dependence on state support. It threw
them wholly on their own resources and on God.
If it were to be alleged that we have, in our schools, just enough of
religious instruction and worship to violate the principle of religious
liberty, to arouse an opposition that endangers our school system, and
to arm this opposition with an argumdnt that can not well be answered, while yet we have not enough to be of essential value or religious
usefulness; if this were alleged, I should wait with much interest and
curiosity, to hear the reply that would be made.
If indeed this (however imperfect) were our only means of imparting religious instruction, we might well run great risks, rather than
abandon it. But have we not a thousand means of religious usefulness, through which good may be done, immixed with harm? Let
the religious press, the preaching of the gospel, the Sunday-school, the
prayer-meeting, the familiar conversation, the household visitation let these be urged to a ten-fold activity, carrying with them the approval of all candid men, provoking no needless opposition, trenching on
not the smallest religious right of any human being, receiving the favor
and sanction of Almighty God.
"But you will not conciliate the hostility of the Romanist, by waiving the compulsory use of the Bible. His opposition is not in reality
against the Bible. but against the free school system." Very likely;
yet it will be a great gain, if we are'able to snatch, from the enemy of
the schools, a powerful weapon, by removing a ground of objection that
has much of plausibility, and that is not destitute of real validity. Is
it net desirable to place our noble school system in such a position
that we can claim for it the support of every candid, unprejudiced person, of whatever class or creed?
"But they will not be satisfied. They will next demand the entire control of the schools." Shall we, however, refuse to grant a person what
is his right, from fear lest he shall then demand what is not his right ?

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

13

But; let us, my dear friends, enjoy a new sensation. Let us for a
moment consent to exercise our reason. Suppose we grant them that
which they profess to demand, but which they do not really desire, and
which we can grant with little or no loss to ourselves, and suppose
that, by granting this, we put it out of their power to demand what
they really do want, and what would be ruinous to us; suppose this,
and who, let us ask, is the gainer by the transaction ?
Neither, again, let us be deterred from an act of justice by fear lest
we shall be thought afraid of the Pope, nor by indignation at the insolent manner in which the claims of any sect are urged.
Under these circumstances, several courses lie open to us.
1. We may pursue the practice now in vogue, regarding it as the
right of the majority to prescribe a form of worship and of religious
instruction for the schools. We may, (a), as in this country, leave it
to tl e majority in the state; or, (b), as proposed by the bill lately before the British Parliament, we may leave it to the majority in each
town, district, or parish. The two are in essence the same.
2. We may give up the system of free schools entirely. We may,
(a), say with that large-hearted but erratic philanthropist, GERR1TT
SMITH, "Education is beyond the province of the state;" or, (b), we
may hold that religious instruction in the public schools is impossible,
that we can not allow godless schools, and that therefore we will remit
the whole work of education to personal enterprise, or to private and
denominational liberality.
3. We may divide the school funds, giving to each of the several denominations their proportional part, for the use of their sectarian
schools.
The objections lying against the first course, we have already endeavored to indicate. Upon the second and third courses we think it needless to dwell, further than to say that we can not believe that either of
them will ever secure the approval of the American people, or of a respectable minority, unless the friends of the public schools shall, by
their want o' wisdom, throw the game into the hands of the enemy.
4. There remains another course. We may say, "The free school
is a part of our national life: it is one of the supports of the republic
We will never surrender it. We have fought four years for the Union, and now we are ready to fight twice as long for our schools.
3

14

THE MICHIGAN TEACHER.

"But religious instruction is an incident of the schools, not an essential. We will not endanger the essential for the sake of the incidental. There are other agencies in abundance, through which religious instruction can be given. But, the free school once destroyed,
nothing can supply its place.
" We have a right to use the public school for imparting such secular instruction and such moral precepts, as shall render the pupils intelligent, virtuous, patriotic citizens. We have no right to use it for
imparting religious instruction, if any one objects to it. We heartily
wish that all could agree, and that there might be no conscientious objections. But since our wishes are vain, we will not violate the religious principles of any. We will respect the liberty of others, as weshould wish our own respected, were we in their place, were we in
England, Spain, or Prussia, and were the tenets of the state church
taught in the public schools. We will set no precedent that we should
not deem it the right of the Romanists to follow, if, hereafter, they
should have a majority in the nation, or in any state. We will recognize the rights of all : we will do it, because they are our rights. We
will do it on the general principle. We will plant the schools on the
eternal justice, on absolute religious equality. We will do this now.We will not take an untenable position, to hold it till we are driven
out, and then to entrench on the next line, to be in turn driven thence.
As Major ANDERSON abandoned Fort Moultrie, when he found that
it was commanded by the guns of the enemy, and took up his position
in Fort Sumter, which he could hold till the last, so will we, now, at
once, leave all untenable ground, we will not cultivate the habit of retreating, we will take a position which we can hold, so long as our citadel of human right, of liberty, of intelligence remains.
"We will exhibit to all the world the example of a nation, in which
the vast majority have voluntarily relinquished observances, endeared
to them by long usage, in order that they might not infringe, in however slight a degree, on the religious liberty of the minority.
"Do we then exclude the Bible from the schools ? The Bible can
not be excluded. It is an essential part of the literature of the world.
It is the key to modern history. Its story, its poetry, its moral precepts, its exemplars of character, can not but engage the admiration of
every candid mind, and are all the more likely to win their regard
when the book does not present itself in a compulsory aspect, calcula-

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

15

ted to provoke opposition. But it will no longer be used as a text-book
of religious instruction, or as a manual of worship.
" That our action is not the result of indifference, we will prove by
pressing with all urgency, zeal, and liberality, the various agencies
through which a religious influence may with propriety be exerted.We will double our activity in the work of missions, of Bible and
tract distribution, in the preaching of the gospel, the Sabbath-school,
the prayer meeting, and personal intercourse."
This is the course toward which I believe that the American people
are tending: this, the position in which, I believe, within a few years,
they will find themselves standing. I am of opinion, also, that upon
this line alone, can our system of public schools be successfully defended.
I may add that this seems to me the position which most accords
with the principles of religious equality, upon which the apostle of
"soul-liberty" established his immortal conimonwealth, wherein he
sought to show, "by a lively experiment," that a prosperous state may
exist, "with full liberty in all religious concernments." If I seem to
have advanced any sentiments that do not agree with the prevalent
theories, my fellow teachers will be pleased to attribute whatever degree of weight they choose, to the fact that the writer is a native of
that Commonwealth, and heard, in his youth, the waves breaking over
the rock on which ROGER WILLIAMS landed, as he crossed the river,
an exile from the colony in which religion was compulsory.
Franklin College, Indiana, June, 1871.

This book is a preservation facsimile produced for
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
It is made in compliance with copyright law
and produced on acid-free archival
60# book weight paper
which meets the requirements of
ANSI/NISO Z39.48- 1992 (permanence of paper).
Preservation facsimile printing and binding
by
Northern Micrographics

Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2011