Year: 1876

gard to the retention OF the Bible in the pub
lie schools is not to be gainsaid. The sugges-
tions made by President Grant, and the con-
stitutional amendment proposed by Mr..
Blaine are having much effect. Men whose
piety, patriotism and good sense are not to be
questioned advise the withdrawal of the
Bible, and some who have hitherto been
strongly in favor of retaining it have shifted
their ground. The question is one not to be
lightly decided, and whether we agree or dis
agree with the views of these men it is but
reasonable to extend to those views candid
consideration, and discover if we can the
reasons for the change of opinion.


When such men as Mr.. Beecher, DIR. Hol-
land, and Prof. Patton of Chicago, a Presby-
terian of the Presbyterians, assume the posi-
tion that the retention of the Bible in our
public schools is menace to our common
school system their apprehensions cannot be
ridiculed as insincere, nor can it be claimed
that their reasoning is influenced by any
prejudice against the Bible,-for if they have
bias it is in the other direction. All these
men regard the Bible as message from the
Almighty to his children, making known to
them the eternal truths of which otherwise
they might remain ignorant, and the rules of
conduct by which they must shape their lives.
They unreservedly accept the divine origin
of the book, have been taught from their
infancy to reverence it as the word of God,
its moral and religious teachings are alike
very dear to them, and they have no question
as to its desirabeness in the public schools.
But they recognize the probability that there
is to be great contest over our common
without ceasing, so long as their efforts have
any promise Of success, division of the
school fund and the appropriation of public
moneys for their own denominational educa-
ton, and that their claims are plausible so
long as there is suspicion of denomina-
tional influence in our system of instruction.
They recognize too the fact that the objec-
| tion is in great measure not to the reading
of the Bible in schools, but to the reading of
the Protestant version. They ask themselves
| if they would be willing to see the Douay
Bible put in the place of that version, and
they answer, no. Then why, they ask, should
we force our version upon the Catholics when
we would not submit to have their version
| forced upon us? We of course believe our
version to be the correct one, as they believe
| theirs to be. But what justice is there in
compelling them to submit to our opinion?


These men heartily believe that the State
would be better with the Bible as an accepted
standard of morality in all the schools, but
| they do not hold that to be the point at issue.
| The point as stated by them is ''whether the
Protestant version of the Bible as the record
| of the Christian religion, shall be forced upon
the children of the State by the State, when
the State is full of dssentients in great varie-
| ty." If we teach our form of religion in our
public schools, the Catholic will wish to
teach his form of religion in his schools, and
to do it with the public money, the same as
we do. Can we blame him, and can we re-
sist his claim so long as we maintain our
own? To admit his claim is to destroy the
schools, for if the Catholic is granted this
privilege, the Jew, the Pagan, the Infdel
can claim it as well. We must remember
that this country is not avowedly a Protes-
tant State, and that with our professed toler-
ance and religious freedom, the majority has
no right to insist that its peculiar religious


views shall be forced upon the minority. In
deed the grand Protestant doctrine of pri-
vate judgment would be disregarded by such
course, the doctrine that sit is no part of
the States business to teach religion, which


is matter between the individual soul and


God." The apprehension that the majority


may change is not an idle one. Already the


Catholics control some of our large cities, and


it is not improbable that they will gain pos
session of some of the States. Can we afford


to leave them a pretext for forcing their form


of religion into the public schools of COM


munites which they control? Is it not wise


to remove that pretext while we have the
power, and TO bar UNCONVENTIONAL teaching


at the common expense forever? 1t is urged


that the opposition to the Bible in schools on


the part of the Catholics is merely a pretext,


that they hold that even the Douay version is


a book only to be presented and interpreted


by the Priest. Granting this it does not i'm


pair the justice of the pretext or the logic of


the position they have taken.


That the Catholics now see the strength of
their position is evident from the fact that


they have relaxed their efforts to take the BIZ


BILE out of the schools, apprehendng that


they will lose their vantage ground entirely if
the schools be made wholly unsectarian. 1t


is always good policy to adopt measures which


annoy the enemy, or which he endeayors to


discourage Us from adopting.


To thesupport of Messrs. Beecher, Patton


and Holland has lately come new and strong


ally in the person of the Rev. NJ j. Savage


OF Boston, who delivered discourse of great


power in that city on the 9th ult, in which


he took ground against the retention


OF the Bible in the schools. He argued that


in forcing our religion into schools supported


by the taxes of all, and that all are forced to


attend, we are violating the fundamental


compact of civil rights on which the nation is


founded; that "if we have the right, just be-


cause we have present majority. to compel


Jews, Buddhists and rationalists to send their


children where they will be instructed in


Christianity, then, by parity of reasoning, if


ever they happen to get the majority, they


will have the same right to compel our chill


dren to study Judaism, Buddhism, Cathol-


icism or Infidelity;' that we should not re-