ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

decided as a question of authority, of law and of government, rather than as a question of ethics, or philosophy, or religion.

I am not speaking of private schools, established by any sect, supported for any special object or purpose. I am speaking of those public schools which are established and supported by the government, as great public institutions and charitiesinstitutions for which it is lawful to levy taxes upon the citizen -charities in the true legal meaning of the word, which are recognized as a part of the institutions of the country, and protected and supported by its laws.

If my first proposition is true, that our Government is based upon religion, that Christianity is an acknowledged and recognized part of our law, does it not follow, as of inevitable necessity, that in every school founded by government, established and supported by government, religion should be recognized, and piety should be taught? I need not repeat, Sir, that I speak not of any sect, or church, or creed, not of any form of faith. I speak of those principles of true piety and religion which have existed from the hour when the morning stars sang together-from the hour when God said "let there be light"-piety eternal as the stars, religion pure and holy as the light of Heaven.

One of our most eloquent orators has told me that many years ago he met Mr. Webster in London, and conversed with him upon the future destinies of our country. Mr. Webster spoke despondingly of our future. Have you no hope, sir, in our education? He shook his head sadly, without a reply. Have you no hopes then in the religious education of the people? His whole noble face lighted up, as he acknowledged that this was the one bright star, yet shining for his country; and he then expressed his intention of one day laying before his countrymen his long treasured thoughts upon that great subject. How well that promise was kept his countrymen well know. Mr. Webster's great oration upon the "Religious Instruction of the Young" remains to-day the noblest monument to his fame, the truest mirror of his character. Those who remember him only in the heat and dust of political strife, or in his great contests at the bar, know nothing of him at all.

I remember it as one of the fortunate occurrences of my life, that I heard Mr. Webster address the Supreme Court shortly

after the death of the Hon. Jeremiah Mason. He spoke with earnest feeling of his early friend, of his deep religious belief, of his awful reverence for the living God; and as he dwelt upon that great theme-as he by way of contrast spoke also of a man without religion, a man whom the Scriptures describe in such terse but terrific language as living "without God in the world" as he declared the great truth that "religion is a necessary and indispensable element in any great human character," it seemed as if the true great soul of the speaker himself was revealed; as if inspired by his theme, he had for once laid open and displayed the profound mysteries of his own consciousness, of his inner self, and of his own lofty and usually inscrutable being. It seemed as if the clouds which enfolded the lofty summits of the mountain had for a moment rolled away, and the lofty peaks were visible, radiant in their serene and sublime majesty, aspiring forever, soaring forever upward towards the everlasting heavens. I believe that in that one moment I obtained more insight into that great nature than years of familiar intercourse would have given. And I believe, too, that his serious and solemn convictions, his highest hopes, his noblest thoughts, are more fully recorded in the great oration of which I have spoken, than in all the rest of his published works.

Will your Honor allow me to detach two or three thoughts from that powerful argument, which are particularly appropriate to the subject of our discussion? He says with great emphasis :

I do say, and do insist, that there is no such thing in the history of religion, no such thing in the history of human law, as a charity, a school of instruction for children, from which the Christian religion and Christian teachers are excluded as unsafe and unworthy intruders.

Again he says:

This scheme of education is derogatory to Christianity, because it proceeds upon the presumption that the Christian religion is not the only true foundation, or any necessary foundation of morals. The ground taken is, that religion is not necessary to morality; that benevolence may be insured by habit, and that all the virtues may flourish and be safely left to the chance of flourishing, without touching the waters of the living spirit of religious responsibility. With him who thinks

thus, what can be the value of the Christian revelation? So the Christian world has not thought; for by the Christian world throughout its broadest extent, it has been and is held as a fundamental truth, that religion is the only solid basis of morals-and that moral instruction, not resting on this basis, is only a building upon sand.

I might multiply authorities of wise and learned men upon this question; but it is not necessary. Can it be argued for a moment, that in educating a child, to whom God has given an immortal soul, as well as intellectual faculties, it is the duty of the State to cultivate the one and leave the other in darkness? Above all things, in a republic which exists only, which can be maintained only, by the virtue of its citizens-can it be argued that it is the duty of the State to teach every thing but these very virtues upon which its existence and well being depend? Will it be said that it is the duty of the State to educate its citizens, but that those very virtues which alone are useful to the State itself "those virtues which tend to secure the blessings of liberty," shall be a sealed book-shall be forbidden forever, banished forever from the schools? If self-preservation is indeed a law of nature, shall not the State be allowed to preserve itself, not by war, not by proscription, not by force, but by instructing its children in picty and morality and pure religion? But I must remember that I cannot discuss this question here, as a question of morality, of philosophy or of religion. I am here only to defend and justify an ancient law of the Commonwealth, which prescribes, in so many words, "that piety, justice, humanity and universal benevolence shall be taught in our public schools."

The principles for which I contend would justify laws far more general and comprehensive than this; and I look for the hour when they will be enacted, but this is the law of to-day; and I believe that no one will be bold enough to deny its obligation or its justice.

This law to which I have referred the Court is but a re-enactment of a more ancient statute; it was sanctioned anew in the revision of our laws, and is now found in chap. 23, sect. 7, of our Revised Statutes.

May it please your Honor, we have advanced thus far in the argument, and we find that it is a positive law, which neither

teacher nor scholar can evade, that piety shall be taught in our public schools, and I turn now to my adversaries, to ask the question that terminates this controversy forever-from what book is piety to be taught in a Republic where Christianity is a part of the law of the land? Is it to be taught from Confucius, or from the Vedas and Puranas of the Hindoos? Shall Plato

be our instructor in piety, or shall we go back to Zoroaster? No, Sir, there is but one answer that can be given. No skill of the opposing counsel can evade it. And I feel that he will not, and dare not attempt to answer it. What course he may take in his argument I cannot anticipate, but this I know, that he will pass this question by in prudent silence. And yet the whole case turns upon this one question, and it must and will be answered. No craft of the Jesuit can avoid it. No form of words can conceal it. The answer comes from every lip, Catholic as well as Protestant-it comes from the altar, from the pulpit, and from the statesman's closet-from the street and from the fireside-from the heart of every mother, from the lips of every child. There is but one book from which we dare teach piety, and that book is God's Holy Bible.

It would seem that by slow steps we are somewhat advanced in this our investigation. We have found that all government is based upon religion. That the government of our free republic is based upon the Christian religion, and that it is a part of the law of the land-that in all public education given by the State to its citizens, it is essential that morality, religion and piety should be taught—we have found this principle to be recognized by our laws and enacted as a positive statute; and the only question remaining is from what book are we to seek this instruction-if that indeed can be called a question which admits of but one answer-which answers itself. And here I might well pause, if this great point is established-for when this is settled all the conclusions follow, of necessity—but there are many points raised, many arguments advanced, which I must attempt to answer.

It will be said, perhaps, we do not object to your use of the Bible-we object only to the common English version of it. I feel constrained to say that I cannot believe this is the true question. Unless I misunderstand wholly a late letter from the Bishop of Boston, if our regulations required the pupils to

read the Douay Bible together, to recite the Ten Commandments together, to repeat the Lord's Prayer, or chant the Psalms of David together, even although they were to use the text of the Douay Bible, it would be a "brotherhood in a simulated union of prayer and adoration, which his church expressly forbids "*but this may not be the ground taken by the counsel here, and I will therefore attempt to answer the suggestion that our common version should give place to the Douay Bible. And the first answer is, that as some version is to be taken; as the Bible in some translation is to be used, as there is a difference of opinion, as to which is the best, the question must be decided by that tribunal to which the laws have intrusted the decision. The school committee are by law required to select and decide upon the question of the books to be used, and they have determined this question. The common version is by an express statute to be read daily, and the committee have used and adopted the same version for all other purposes.

I

I uphold and justify that decision upon many grounds; and say first to these gentlemen who are so earnest for toleration, who are so fearful of sectarianism, that I object to their Douay Bible because it is avowedly a sectarian book, written and published with that acknowledged object. Our Saxon Bible never has been, never can be sectarian. It is quite worthy of remark that at this hour it has no express sanction of any sect or of any church. No creed can claim it as peculiarly its own; it is the common property, the common heritage of all. Nay more -it is well known there are more real and essential differences of opinion between the various Protestant sects, as to the correct translation of various important texts, than between the Catholics and the Protestants. But for all that, this version is -with one exception only-accepted by all sects of Christians who speak the English tongue, as a translation sufficiently correct not for sectarian arguments-not for disputes upon points of doctrine-not for creeds or schisms-but for the common and daily use of Christians, for instruction in piety, in morality, and in that pure religion which is high above sects and doctrines, as the stars are above the earth; and for this very reason-because the Christian sects who differ upon so many points, are with

* Letter from the Bishop of Boston to the School Committee.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »