“The Christian Register published last week the replies of thirty-five eminent men and women, many of whom are practical educators, to the questions whether morality can be taught in our public schools without sectarianism, and what suggestions they had to offer as to methods and influences. As, naturally, they look at the subject from widely different points of view, their replies vary considerably in detail. It is the more gratifying, therefore, to notice that most of them answer the first question heartily in the affirmative. Of course the five Roman Catholics claim that morality cannot be taught, in any sense satisfactory to them, without including the inculcation of the principles of Roman Catholicism; and there are one or two others who reply negatively.”AMS June 26, 1889, page 170.2

This is in line with the ideas expressed by Senator Blair in his speech in the Senate, December 21, on the occasion of referring his proposed religious amendment to the Committee on Education and Labor. Said he:—AMS June 26, 1889, page 170.3

“In regard to the general principles of the Christian religion, no one but a bigot would think of having introduced into the public schools instruction in favor of any form of sectarianism; but a knowledge of the Christian religion, even if there be no enforcement of those truths upon the conviction and belief of the child, instruction in those principles, a statement or explanation of what they are, exactly as instruction is given in the principles of arithmetic and geography and any of the common branches of science, is exceedingly desirable and important for every citizen of this country to possess, whether he applies the principles in his personal conduct or not.”AMS June 26, 1889, page 170.4

No one can talk that way who has any just idea of the Scriptures-their nature and object. Such talk can come only from those who can see no more in the Bible than they do in an ordinary text-book on science; just as the carrying out of Mr. Blair’s proposed amendment would result in lowering the Bible, in the minds of the people, to the level of text-books on arithmetic and geography.AMS June 26, 1889, page 170.5

In contrast with the statements of those who imagine that the Bible can be studied with profit in the same way that history and geography are studied, let us place the statement of a man who knows what the Bible is, and what it is for. In the Old Testament Student of February, 1889, the editor, Prof: William R. Harper, of Yale University, writes as follows:—AMS June 26, 1889, page 170.6

“The Old Testament is not Hebrew literature. This statement may appear startling; but it is true. The Old Testament is not Hebrew literature in the sense that the Iliad and the Greek Drama are Greek literature; or the Book of the Dead, Egyptian; or the Zend Avesta, Persian. If one desires simple Hebrew literature, the product of the Jewish mind, he will find it in the Talmud, Targums, and other rabbinical writings. The writers of the Old Testament were more than mere Hebrews. Moses, David, and Isaiah did not simply reflect national thought and feeling. They were inspired, were men to whom divine thought and feeling were revealed. When we speak of the study of the Old Testament as literature, we mean, then, the study of the national dress and outward adornment of a body of divine truth. Such study is profitable and interesting, and very important. But is it insignificant when compared with the study of the doctrine which this outward national dress contains? Renan has made a special study of the Hebrew Scripture from the point of view that they are a national literature, and with what result? The divine truth has made so little impression upon him that he can write a play, ‘the story of which, of a man’s debauchery the day before the guillotine, is as correct as can well be conceived, and its leading thought is that passions must rum their course even if death stands at the door.’ Such debasing thought and philosophy may thus co-exist with the highest appreciation of the Bible as a literature. Turn now from Renan to those who have studied these sacred writings to find therein the voice of God speaking of sin, ju8tice, and mercy; and haw great the contrast! Here belong such men as Luther, Calvin, Latimer, Knox, Wesley, together with the great rank and file of earnest Christian workers and believers. The Old Testament is not the history of men’s thoughts about God, or desires after God, or affections toward him. It professes to be a history of God’s unveiling of himself to men. If it is not that, it is nothing; it is false from beginning to end. To make it the history of the speculation of a certain tribe about God, we must deny the very root of any speculations which that tribe ever had. For this root is the belief that they could not think of him unless he had first thought of them; that they could not speak of him unless he were speaking of them.”AMS June 26, 1889, page 170.7

“In the modern revival of biblical study there is a danger that the Scripture by some may be studied only after the manner of Renan, or too exclusively as a national literature.”AMS June 26, 1889, page 170.8

Dr. Harper is not ignorant of the literary beauty of the Bible, as anyone who is acquainted with him can testify; but he sees the danger of studying it with that sole object. As a matter of fact, it cannot be taught according to Mr. Blair’s ideas—except by avowed infidels, which of course would never be thought of, and if it were, the result would necessarily be to make infidels. No man who has any regard for the Bible as the word of God, can teach it without conforming his teaching to his own religious views; and if this were done in the public schools, confusion and religious strife would inevitably follow. How can the danger be averted?—Only by keeping the Bible out of State schools, and leaving instruction in it to the family, the church, and the private or denominational school.AMS June 26, 1889, page 170.9

They are not true friends of the Bible who are clamoring for its introduction into the public schools. They may be sincere in their motives, but they would give the sacred Book the worst blow it has ever received. The friends of the Bible are those who wish it studied for just what it is-the revelation of God’s will to man-the guide to holiness and eternal life.AMS June 26, 1889, page 170.10

E. J. W.

June 19, 1889

July 3, 1889