THE GENERAL ARGUMENT.

VIII.

THE UNCHRISTIAN METHOD.

We

It is a rule, alike of common sense and Christian morality, that no end, however good in itself, should be sought by unlawful and improper means. are not to do evil that good may come. In obeying one law we are not to violate another. Christianity neither needs nor approves of any unchristian methods for its propagation. It permits no one to contradict any of its own principles on the theory of serving its interests, or making it the minister of human benefits. It is, hence, pertinent to inquire whether those who demand that our public school system shall be used as one of the means for teaching and propagating Christianity, and who to this end insist that the Bible shall be read, and other religious services shall be had in the public schools, are not amenable to the charge of seeking a good end in an improper manner. It will be well for them not to assume that they are infallible, or the only persons who have any genuine religious zeal, who believe and reverence the Bible, or upon whom God has placed the seal of his favor. It may be that they are entirely wrong as to their method, and that the wrong involves a trespass upon the rights of others; and whether such is the fact or not, is certainly a fair subject for honest inquiry.

We propose, then, to consider this point, and for this purpose quote, as follows, the language of Judge Welch, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of The Board of Education of Cincinnati vs. Minor and Others (23 Ohio State Reports, Granger, pp. 249, 250):

"If it be true that our law enjoins the teaching of the Christian religion in the schools, surely then all the teachers should be Christians. Were I such a teacher, while I should instruct the pupils that the Christian religion was true and all other religions false, I should tell them that the law itself was an unchristian law. One of my first lessons to the pupils would show it to be unchristian. That lesson would be: 'Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the Prophets.' I could not look the veriest infidel or heathen in the face and say that such a law was just or that it was a fair specimen of Christian republicanism. I should have to tell him that it was an outgrowth of false Christianity and not one of the lights which Christians are commanded to shed upon an unbelieving world."

In another part of the opinion (p. 253), Judge Welch said:

"Government is an organization for particular purposes. It is not almighty, and we are not to look to it for everything. The great bulk of human. affairs and human interests is left by any free government to individual enterprise and individual

action.

Religion is eminently one of these interests, lying outside the true and legitimate province of government.”

In another part of the opinion (p. 248), the Judge also said :

"Legal Christianity is a solecism; a contradiction of terms. When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere impartial protection it disowns itself. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human governments. United with government religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated the better it is for both." In still another portion of the same opinion (p. 249), the Judge further said:

Properly speaking, there is no such thing as 'religion of State.' What we mean by that phrase is the religion of some individual or set of individuals, taught and enforced by the State. The State can have no religious opinions; and if it undertakes to enforce the teaching of such opinions, they must be the opinions of some natural person or class of persons."

It is not at all surprising that the Court, holding these views of government considered in relation to religion, should have spoken of the enforced teaching of Christianity in the public schools as being "unchristian"-yea, as a method of teaching alike

inconsistent with the system itself and the legitimate province of civil government. The Court decided that Ohio had no such "unchristian law," and that the Board of Education of Cincinnati, when resolving to discontinue "religious instruction and the reading of religious books, including the Holy Bible," in the public schools of that city, was simply exercising a power vested in the board by law.

name.

It is well to keep in mind in all our reasoning upon the School question that the State, as a political organization, has never been trusted by the Divine Founder of Christianity with the duty of its propagation. He never said to the State: "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel," or "Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." He said these things to his apostles, and to those who through them should believe on his The apostleship of his Word he located in his disciples and followers, and not in kings, governors, rulers, senators, or legislative assemblies. To the former he gave his commission, and on them imposed its duties, forewarning them of persecutions for his name's sake, and promising to be their helper. An apostle sums up the whole idea when he speaks of the Church—the company of believers and confessors of the faith-as the pillar and ground of the truth. Jesus presented the same thought when speaking of his disciples as the light of the world, and commanding them to let their

light so shine before men that they might see their good works and glorify their Father who is in Heaven.

What, then, according to the express plan of Christ, has the State to do with teaching or propagating his religion? Absolutely nothing whatever. It has no commission or warrant to touch the work at all. The duty is assigned to another and different agency. It is, hence, true, as said by Judge Welch, that a law enjoining the teaching of Christianity in the public schools, which are purely State institutions, sustained by general taxation and governed by the civil power, would be "an unchristian law"-unchristian in the sense of changing and contravening the policy established by the Son of God himself. It would employ the State power for religious and spiritual purposes; and this certainly was not the theory of Christ. It would be antiChristian; and, hence, those who propose to serve God in this way are, in our judgment, gravely mistakened in their method. Their plan is to call into action a power that has no commission to do the work, and never attempted to do it without far more damage than benefit.

This, however, is not the whole case, since the teaching of Christianity or any other religion by the State, and, of course, at the public expense, in a community of diverse religious beliefs as is the fact with the American people, is "unchristian" in the sense of violating the golden rule of equal and