Chapter III: The Nineteenth Century (1)

The problem of elementary preparatory education fell from the hands of the churches, and was taken up by the state. What is the character of that education which the state can rightfully support? A momentous question indeed; but before considering it, let us investigate the schools that the state has organized, and which it did, and still does, support. There was an urgent demand for liberal education, and several States appropriated lands toward a school fund. As early as 1786 “New York State set apart two lots in each township of the unoccupied lands, for ‘gospel and school purposes,’” and by a vote of about eighteen hundred, devoted the proceeds of half a million acres of vacant lands to the support of the common schools. Other States followed the same general plan, some in rapid succession, others more slowly. One thing was a settled fact,—the _education of the common people, passed over by the churches, had been taken up by the government_.

[Sidenote: Horace Mann and the public schools]

Under those circumstances it is not surprising that in 1837, Horace Mann, president of the Massachusetts Senate, interested himself in the subject of education. Of this man it is said, “Rarely have great ability, unselfish devotion, and brilliant success been so united in the course of a single life.” This man became the father of the public-school system of the United States, and began a work which long before should have been started by the popular churches of America. But it was neglected by them, and it will be profitable for us to watch the development of the grandest system of schools ever organized,—a system which, if the subject of Christian education could be dropped, and it be viewed alone from the standpoint of the politician, has brought the United States into prominence as an educational center among the nations of the world. However, since _republicanism rests in the bosom of Protestantism, and Protestantism is cradled in Christian education_, the moment the feature of Christian education is laid aside, and the system purports to be civil (but in fact it is never really that), that moment it loses its real vitality and genuine strength. But to return to Mr. Mann and his wonderful work.

[Sidenote: The churches and public schools]

Boone says: “The gnarls of a century’s growth were to be smoothed; not all of the large number of private schools were in accord with the new movement, and the churches were naturally watchful of the encroachments of unsectarian education.”[164] This expression describes the sectarian schools as in much the same attitude as that assumed by the weakening Christian church about the days of Constantine; and as the church of those days held out its hands to a stronger power for aid, and because it had lost its individual supply of strength,—the Spirit of God,—so now these sectarian schools watched with a jealous eye the progress of unsectarian schools, and, unable to hold their former and their allotted position by virtue of inherent strength, they reached out their hands to the state coffers, and received aid. Yale did it before the days of Horace Mann; many others have done it since.

[Sidenote: Improvements made by Horace Mann]

Boone continues: “Incompetent teachers were fearful, politicians carped, and general conservatism hindered” by the advances of Mr. Mann. “Much was to be accomplished, also, within the school. Teachers had to be improved, interest awakened, methods rationalized, and the whole adjusted to the available resources. Moreover, school architecture had to be studied. All this Mr. Mann did.” How great was the opportunity which the religious sects of America had missed! Some of the things which were accomplished in the next few years are thus reported: “A system of normal schools was originated. The annual appropriation for schools was doubled; two million dollars expended on houses and furniture; the number of women teachers increased; institutes introduced and systematized; school libraries multiplied; education provided for the dependent, and young offending classes, and the first compulsory school law of the State enacted.”

[Sidenote: Henry Bernard]

Henry Bernard, a young lawyer of Connecticut, did for his State a work similar to that of Horace Mann in Massachusetts. He was a man of keen insight, and struck at the root of many evils. Finding that public money was misapplied, and many primary children neglected, he went about to work a reform. “Teachers were awakened, associations for mutual improvement were formed.... He established an educational periodical,” wholly at his own expense. In 1843 this strong-hearted, level-headed man was called by the State of Rhode Island to straighten out the tangles in her educational system. From this beginning has grown the public school system as seen to-day. It is interwoven in the meshes of our national history from Boston to San Francisco, and from St. Paul to New Orleans.

[Sidenote: Reaction in colleges]

The colleges had made necessary the academies—classical preparatory schools; and these sent forth men who modeled the high schools after the academic course. The Christian colleges set the pace to begin with; then, finding themselves outrun in the race, to meet the needs, the nineteenth century sees a gradual but none the less decided change in their courses of instruction. Here are a few of the changes, with the reasons for them. Says Boone:—

“The current and recent magnifying of the humanities, the growing recognition of an altruistic and co-operative spirit in civil and social and political life, the increasing complexity of social forces, new aspects of government, the fundamental oneness of all life, and sequent idea of the solidarity of human society, have created for the student new lines of investigation.”[165]

How true! How wide the separation between the ideal held before the early Harvard and that of the Harvard of to-day. “The sequent idea of the solidarity of human society” as a new line of investigation for students, seems almost like mockery when we see the fundamental principles of the government loosening, and ready to crumble on the application of some unexpected force.

[Sidenote: Further changes]

The same departure from the study of God’s Word and the record of his dealings with men and nations—God in history and politics—is noticeable in the curriculum of each modern college and university. To quote again from Boone, “The history of customs and institutions, the growth of opinions and sentiments as crystallized in social forms, the study of governments and religions, of art and industry, are clamoring for a place in the curriculum. Comparative philology, with the enlarged interest of modern languages, belongs to the present period.” Such a curriculum can not but have weight in molding the minds of men, and the history we are making to-day is but the resultant of the thoughts inculcated in our modern colleges.

[Sidenote: Evolution taught]

The chair in science has been greatly enlarged: the ideas of evolution as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, and Dana have crept into the lecture courses, and having been received, bid fair to stay. Says Boone: “It has been said that biological study [in the universities] began with Huxley in England, and later in this country.” “Of the several courses in Harvard, thirty per cent are in science, and in most other contemporary institutions a similar large ratio obtains. This has had its influence upon the accepted curriculum.” This science would be termed by the Apostle Paul “science falsely so called.”

[Sidenote: Multiplication of courses]

“Great changes have occurred in the twenty years [since 1868] in the multiplication of courses and the accompanying specializations of study.” Perhaps figures will be more impressive on this point than mere words. Boone states that “of the forty-seven higher institutions whose reports are given by Dr. Adams, including Harvard, Columbia, and Brown, and ten leading State universities, forty-six report an aggregate of _one hundred and eighty-nine_ courses in history and closely related studies.” Cornell now offers so many courses that should a student attempt to take them all, it would require more than the natural life of a man to complete them.

[Sidenote: A cramming system with children]

It is not with any spirit of condemnation that these things are stated, but it can be seen by all that there is a meaning which inevitably attaches to these changes. The multiplicity of subjects taught has led to a wonderful book study, and a student’s whole life is spent in an attempt to put into his own head the thoughts which others have written for him. The spirit of the universities was caught by the academies, and by the high schools, and is reflected even in the lower grades. It is the beginning of the cramming process now so forcibly denounced by a few true educators. Readers of our magazines are familiar with the ideas expressed by Mrs. Lew Wallace in “The Murder of the Modern Innocents,” by the editor of the _Ladies’ Home Journal_, and others. I deem it sufficient to quote from Mr. Edward Bok, who startled American homes by stating that “in five cities of our country alone there were, during the last school term, over sixteen thousand children between the ages of eight and fourteen taken out of the public schools because their nervous systems were wrecked, and their minds were incapable of going on any farther in the infernal cramming system which exists to-day in our schools.... It was planned by nature that between the years of seven and fifteen the child should have rest,—not rest which will stop all mental and physical growth, of course, ... but the child’s pace should be checked so as to allow him to recover from the strain which his system has just undergone.

“But what really happens to the child at the age of seven? Is he given this period of rest?—Verily, no! He enters the schoolroom, and becomes a victim of long hours of confinement—the first mental application, mind you, that the child has ever known. The nervous wear and tear begins; the child is fairly launched upon his enjoyment (God save the mark!) of the great educational system of America.... Special systems of ‘marks,’ which amount to prizes, are started, serving only to stimulate the preternaturally bright child, who needs relaxation most of all, and to discourage the child who happens to be below the average of intelligence. It is cramming, cramming, cramming! A certain amount of ‘ground must be gone over,’ as it is usually called. Whether the child is physically able to work the ground, does not enter into the question. And we do not stop even there! The poor children are compelled to carry home a pile of books to study, usually after supper, and just before going to bed, and that is about the most barbarous part of the whole system.”[166]

This is enough to show that the system is recognized as practicing methods not in accordance with the laws of nature, which are the laws of God. Such methods are the result of the system at the head of which stand the colleges and universities which outline the work for all below them.

Parents read these statements with wonder and a feeling of horror, but only a few realize that the primary schools and the grammar schools, and even the high schools, are responsible for the health-destroying, brain-benumbing methods employed in our public schools. The cause for the present system and methods is to be searched for in the changes which time has wrought in those simple schools planted by the freedom-seeking Puritan fathers. Say, rather, that Protestantism offered a system of Christian education which, if it had been followed, would have prevented what we find to-day.

[Sidenote: Modern reformers]

It is gratifying to find that the decline has not proceeded undisturbed. Its history has not sped on as a smooth-flowing river. From time to time men have arisen offering educational ideas in advance of the age in which they taught. Such men were Comenius and Pestalozzi, who introduced object-study in place of the time-honored memory work; and Froebel, whose patient labors for the children of the kindergarten have not only endeared him to the heart of the true teacher, but have made him a benefactor of mankind in that he aroused queries in regard to the methods of instructing the human mind. These men, searching for truth, caught glimpses of the principles of true education as taught by Christ. Disciples of these men, instead of taking from them a borrowed light, have the privilege of going again to the source of true wisdom,—“the Teacher come from God.” Here is the secret of success for educational reformers of the twentieth century.

[Sidenote: Effects of modern education]

The tide has kept up a constant ebb and flow. When the tendency was growing strong toward the classics, natural science revived, and the spirit of investigation broke the band which memory work was weaving. Science, not content with lawful fields of exploration, is now delving into metaphysics, and sending to the world a race of skeptics and infidels; or, if professed Christians, students are confirmed evolutionists, casting aside the Word of God for the theories of geology, astronomy, or biology. The narrow cramming system of memory-teaching was killing the intellectual life of the children, when nature-study was introduced. This was an improvement indeed, for these studies are thought-producing; but here the tide set in the opposite direction, and faith in a Creator is destroyed.

AS OF JERUSALEM, SO NOW OF THE CHURCHES, THEY ARE DESTROYED BECAUSE THE EDUCATION OF THE CHILDREN IS NEGLECTED. Wherein lies the safety of the Christian parent and his child? The child has a right to a Christian education. Where is it to be obtained? Can the state give it?—It could not if it would. Are the Protestant churches educating their own children? Few indeed are the Christian schools, and to-day the churches are reaping the result of their long period of retrogression. The words of Dr. James M. Buckley, editor of the _Christian Advocate_, the leading organ of Methodism, voice the general sentiment. He says in part:—

“That the Methodist Episcopal Church, with nearly three million of communicants and a vast army of Sunday-school scholars, should add less than seven thousand to its membership in 1899, is startling. That in the same period it should show a decline of 28,595 in those avowed and accepted candidates known as probationers, is ominous. Such a situation has not been frequent in our history.... No reverent person can charge the decline to God the Father Almighty, to Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, or to the Holy Ghost, in whom the church ceaselessly declares its belief. It must therefore lie at the doors of every church.”[167]

This statement is very true; and yet, while exonerating God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit from any blame in the matter, it is sad to note that prominent men in the ministry fail to see that the churches are losing their hold upon humanity because they have relinquished their right as Protestants to educate the children. The churches are to be pitied; but there is only one remedy, and that church which takes up its neglected duty in _education_ will receive the reward. To the students of prophecy it is a significant fact that this state of affairs has been growing deplorably worse since about the year 1843 or 1844.

[Sidenote: Growth of elective system]

The fluctuations which have occurred in the curricula of our leading schools has been referred to before, but is emphasized by a glance at the introduction of the elective courses. When the course of instruction became decidedly complex, requiring years for completion, and the multiplication of subjects made it impracticable for the majority of students to complete the course as outlined, there arose the privilege of option in the choice of the studies in many courses. This was also made necessary in the colleges by the organization of many technical schools throughout the land. “The early efforts to establish mechanics and manual-labor institutes are interesting as marking a reaction against the dominance of language and metaphysics, and an ingenious appeal for the large recognition of the physical sciences.” This has led in some cases to the substitution of German or some other modern language, and an increased amount of mathematics in place of the classics, the students being free to choose.

[Sidenote: Freedom of Virginia University]

This spirit of freedom, which has been almost wrenched, one might say, from many of the institutions of higher learning, is occasionally found to have swayed the hearts of earlier educators. One reads with keen relish the history of the founding of the University of Virginia, the moving spirit of which was Thomas Jefferson. The reader will be interested in a paragraph by Boone:—

“As early as 1779, while the ‘Old Dominion,’ with her sister States, was embroiled in a doubtful war; and again in 1814, after numerous defeats and constant opposition from the already-established William and Mary College, from the Protestant churches, and from most of the political leaders of the time, Mr. Jefferson and his friends sought to provide for the state, along with the general system of education, a university, in which should be taught in the highest degree, ‘every branch of knowledge, whether calculated to enrich, stimulate, and adorn the understanding, or to be useful in the arts and practical business of life.’ Five years later (1819) an act of the Assembly was obtained establishing the University of Virginia. When six years later it was opened, after a wide acquaintance and careful study of the most progressive institutions in the United States, it was found that in discipline and instruction, in constitution and means, it very materially differed from them all.”[168]

[Sidenote: Freedom from other objectionable features]

The far-reaching sight of the chief promoter of the enterprise is seen when we note wherein lay this very material difference. “There is one practice,” wrote Mr. Jefferson, “from which we shall certainly vary, although it has been copied by nearly every college and academy in the United States; that is, the holding of the students all to one prescribed course of reading, and disallowing exclusive application to those branches only which are to qualify them for the particular vocation to which they are destined. We shall, on the contrary, allow them uncontrolled choice in the lectures they shall choose to attend, and _require elementary_ qualifications only, and sufficient age.”[169]

This was a wonderful step for the time in which it occurred, and indicates the direction given to minds of men by the Spirit of God. The greater freedom occasioned by the adoption of the elective system is felt throughout the educational centers of our land. Johns Hopkins University grants the degree of B.A. in four out of six of its courses without the classics. This leads us, however, to a consideration of the question suggested several pages back, _What subjects can of right be taught in schools supported from the public funds?_

[Sidenote: Should the state support the school]

Education, pure and simple, in the breadth of its meaning, is character development. The state, as such, can not judge of motives, hence it can not educate the inner man. The two phases of the Reformation were Protestantism and republicanism; the first deals with the spiritual nature, and through this reaches the entire man, making a symmetrical character; the governmental part deals only with the mental and physical—the outward manifestations. To the church was committed the charge of the spiritual man, and the commission to “teach all nations” given to the little company that watched the ascending Lord, was repeated to the church in the sixteenth century; and with especial weight was this burden laid upon the shoulders of American men and women. The state needs men to carry forward its pursuits; and for the purely secular training of such individuals, it has a perfect right, even a duty, to provide from the common fund. A purely mechanical, secular, or business course might therefore be offered in our state schools; but with such an education few parents are contented. The moral nature needs training; in order to be good citizens, it is argued, some part of the system of ethics which is based on the doctrines of Christ must be inculcated. Christian schools, and those only, can give a spiritual education. This is the dilemma in which the educational system found itself about the time of the Revolution, and the matter, instead of reaching a satisfactory solution, has grown steadily worse. The churches failed to provide for the Christian training; and the state felt that something must be done for the children. Public schools were established; but these, by right, can not teach morality or anything pertaining thereto. But they do. Hence, the church by her failure has forced the state into the attempt to do her work,—an impossible task. Again, the churches and the denominational schools, not willing to be outdone by state institutions, have extended their stakes and lengthened their cords until they offer, not those subjects which are character building, so much as those which will enable them to compete with state institutions. Here again is a departure from Christian education, and a mixture which would be hard to designate as other than papal.

[Sidenote: Degrees a papal mark]

Again, the state sets its seal upon work done in institutions which it supports, and the Christian schools—those in name at least—not only accept public money, but allow the state to put its seal to their work in the granting of literary degrees and diplomas. This is a natural result of the union of worldly education and the principles of Christian education which we have followed through two centuries, and yet to-day there is scarcely a school claiming to be Christian in its principles that dare raise its voice against the customs of its sister institutions.

[Sidenote: Education and state unite; result, papal]

“Render, therefore, unto Cæsar the things that be Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s,” would be repeated, should the author of those words enter in person the institutions of learning which claim to bear his name. A union of church and state is described as the papacy; a union of education (the foundation of the church) and the state is passed by with scarcely a dissenting voice.

[Sidenote: Educational work of Catholics]

So far in this chapter, the educational work of the Catholic Church in the United States has been passed without a word;—not because that organization has been less active here than in European countries, but because the idea is so prevalent that a system of education to be papal must emanate from the Roman Church. Ideas to the contrary have been emphasized again and again in these pages. In our own country we can not fail to see that, aside from the work of the Catholic Church, there has been developed a papal system of instruction. The stepping-stones from the present back into the dim ages of the past, when Egypt or Greece swayed the world through science or philosophy, may in places be hidden; but the products of Greek philosophy and Egyptian wisdom, seasoned with the ideas of the medieval scholasticism, or the more subtle mixture of modern Christian education and the papal system as exemplified by Sturm, to which is attached the State’s seal of approval, meet us from season to season as our schools send forth their graduates.

[Sidenote: Catholic schools]

The Catholics, however, have not watched the growth of our educational system without putting forth a vigorous effort. From Colonial days, when the Jesuits flocked to these shores, and taught the established schools and missions, to the present time, when the new university for the education of Catholic youth is in full operation at our national capital, this organization has spared no effort. As Boone says, “All other denominational service in education is partial and irregular compared with the comprehensive grasp of the Catholic Church. Their aim is all-inclusive, and assumes no other agency. Ignoring the public school, their plan is co-extensive with their membership. With one fifth of all the theological seminaries, and one third of all their students; with one fourth of the colleges, nearly six hundred academies, and two thousand six hundred parochial schools (elementary), instructing more than half a million children, the church is seen to be a force which, educationally considered, is equaled by no other single agency but the government itself.”[170]

The system by which this work is carried forward is thus described: “The twelve Catholic provinces ... are subdivided into seventy-nine dioceses. The latter average from thirty-five to forty parishes, each of which is supposed to have a school for the elementary training of their children. As a matter of fact, _ninety-three per cent_ of them maintain parochial schools, in which are educated, generally by the priesthood, ... the 511,063 pupils. In addition to these are five hundred and eighty-eight academies, usually for the girls, and ninety-one colleges.” This was written six or seven years ago, but the figures speak for themselves. With the nation honeycombed by schools which have as their avowed object the annihilation of Protestantism and republicanism; with our own public-school system, so grand in many respects, _yet compromising until it is indeed papal_, it is not strange that Methodist and Presbyterian congregations are bemoaning their dwindling numbers.

Should Protestants educate their own children? History speaks in emphatic language, Yes! The papacy says, If you wish us to have your children, No!

“God stands at the door and knocks; blessed are we if we open to him.”—_Luther._

XVI

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

After watching the educational struggle which has gone on for ages between truth and error, and observing that scarcely a century has passed which has not witnessed a controversy more or less severe between Christian and papal methods of instruction, one is prepared to believe that this is a subject inseparably connected with the history of nations. This being true, we must expect to find ourselves in the midst of the controversy to-day. It needs but a casual glance at current history to confirm this fact; for minds are troubled because of existing evils, and hearts are open for educational truth.

If we are inclined to think that the principles of Christian education are new and before unheard of, we have but to catch the thoughts which have swayed true educators from the time of Christ to the present day to know that the same spirit has been at work in all ages to draw the hearts of men to God.

[Sidenote: Christian education exemplified by Christ]

The advent of Christ was a wonderful event. “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” That man might behold the workings of God in human flesh, and see here the manifestation of truth, Christ was born. His was pre-eminently a work of education, and His system was _Christian education_. By this means, Heaven again reached earth, and clasped it to her bosom. Men, in their shortsightedness, were unable to comprehend the spiritual teachings of the Son of God, and often His most powerful lessons fell unappreciated on the ears of the multitudes, and even on the ears of the apostles.

[Sidenote: The Holy Spirit the teacher]

Much as the life of Christ has done for the world, there has never been a man, or a nation of men, who have fully followed his teachings. Error has ever been mixed with truth, and the educators of the world have failed to see the realization of their hopes because of this partial grasp of truth.

Christ, when rejected by the world, did not withdraw entirely, and leave man to his fate; but He sent forth His Spirit, the _Spirit of Truth_ as an educator, leading minds into truth. This working of the Spirit is plainly seen, for one man has been directed to one phase of true education, while another, perhaps a contemporary worker, or perhaps a successor, it may be a fellow countryman, or one at a great distance, has picked up another thread in the skein, and developed another thought for the world.

[Sidenote: True education always represented]

The world has never long been left without some representative of Christian education. In attempting to define the term which stands as the subject of this chapter, attention is called to the partial work of reform which has been accomplished by men whom the world recognizes as educators. The errors of a false education, so prevalent in times past, and still recognized as a part of the educational systems now in vogue, stand in strong contrast to the correct ideas advocated by these men at various times.

[Sidenote: Latin and word-study in papal schools]

The men whose ideas are given in this chapter lived and wrought after the Reformation; and in order to reveal the error against which they worked, it is necessary to consider the methods of instruction to be found in papal schools. Similar thoughts are found on previous pages, but, for the sake of contrast, they are here repeated.

Painter says: “When a young man had acquired a thorough mastery of the Latin language for all purposes; when he was well versed in the theological and philosophical opinions of his preceptors; when he was skillful in dispute, and could make a brilliant display from the resources of a well-stored memory, he had reached the highest points to which the Jesuits sought to lead him. _Originality and independence_ of mind, _love of truth for its own sake, the power of reflecting, and of forming correct judgments, were not merely neglected_, they were suppressed in the Jesuits’ system.”[171] Karl Schmidt likewise testifies in the words, “_Books_, _words_, had been the subjects of instruction.... _The knowledge of things was wanting._ Instead of things themselves, _words about the things were taught_.” “Learning by doing” is the rule in Christian education. A large amount of Latin and Greek was, and is still, the rule in the papal educational system, and these languages were taught, not for the sake of thought, but merely for the words.

[Sidenote: Reformers oppose mere language study]

The world had for a century been bound by the study of the classics. This bondage was broken by the Reformation, but the world returned thither again. Milton, the poet of the seventeenth century, wrote: “Language is but the _instrument_ conveying to us things useful to be known. Though a linguist should pride himself to have all the tongues that Babel cleft the world into, yet if he have not studied the solid things in them, as well as the words and lexicons, he were nothing so much to be esteemed a learned man as any yeoman or tradesman competently wise in his mother dialect only.... We do amiss to spend seven or eight years in scraping together so much Latin and Greek as might be learned otherwise easily and delightfully in one year.”[172]

[Sidenote: Things studied instead of language]

Ratich, a German educator of the sixteenth century, said: “We are in bondage to Latin. The Greeks and Saracens would never have done so much for posterity if they had spent their youth in acquiring a foreign tongue. We must study our own language, and then the sciences.” “Everything first in the mother tongue,” and “nothing on mere authority,” were rules in his schoolroom. Comenius, the renowned teacher, used to say: “If so much time is to be spent on the language alone, when is the boy to know about things,—when will he learn philosophy, when religion, and so forth? He will consume his life in preparing for life.”

[Sidenote: Mechanical teaching is papal]

How exactly this applies to the word-study of our boys and girls to-day! It matters not whether it be Latin or English grammar; indeed, it may be that other mode of expression,—some form of mathematics,—where time and energy are devoted to the process merely. A failure to make the development of thought—independent thinking, in fact—the main object in instruction, stamps any method of teaching as papal, no matter by what name it is known, or by whom the subjects are taught. It was the life work of Comenius to counteract this tendency, as the following principles show. He insisted that “nothing should be taught that is not of solid utility.” “Nothing is to be learned by heart that is not first thoroughly understood.” “Theologians and physicians should study Greek.” “Doing can be learned only by doing.” That educational reformers of to-day are advocating these same principles will be seen later. This is a part of Christian education.

[Sidenote: Character-building the aim in true education]

John Locke, an English educator of the seventeenth century, had truth on the subject of education. Of the languages, he says: “When I consider what ado is made about a little Latin and Greek, how many years are spent in it, and what a noise and business it makes to no purpose, I can hardly forbear thinking that parents of children still live in fear of the schoolmaster’s rod, which they look on as the only instrument of education; as if a language or two were its whole business.”

Character was valued by this man, and his statement as to the relative importance of study is valuable to parents and teachers. “Reading and writing and learning I allow to be necessary, but yet not the chief business. I imagine you think him a very foolish fellow that should not value a virtuous or a wise man infinitely before a scholar. Not but that I think learning a great help to both, in well-disposed minds; but yet it must be confessed also that in others not so disposed, it helps them only to be the more foolish or worse men.

[Sidenote: How Locke would choose a teacher]

“I say this, that when you consider the breeding of your son, and are looking out for a schoolmaster, or a tutor, you would not have, as is usual, Latin and logic only in your thoughts. Learning must be had, but in the second place, as subservient only to greater qualities. Seek out somebody that may know how discreetly to frame his manners: place him in hands where you may, as much as possible, secure his innocence, cherish and nurse up the good, and gently correct and weed out any bad inclinations, and settle in him good habits. THIS IS THE MAIN POINT; and this being provided for, learning may be had into the bargain.”

To how great an extent are Protestants following this excellent advice? In what schools for Protestant boys and girls is innocence cherished? where is the good nourished? where are bad inclinations gently weeded out, and good habits settled? where do these things take a position ahead of book learning?

“Virtue,” continues Locke, “as the first and most necessary of those endowments that belong to a man or gentleman, was based on religion. As the foundation of this, there ought very early to be imprinted on his mind a true notion of God.” Here one finds a clear conception of Christian education, which parents of to-day would do well to study.

[Sidenote: Cramming a papal method]

The study of the classics, together with the memory work which was the chief characteristic of these studies, was not the only defect in papal education; hence it is not the only error from which educators, led, as one must believe, by the spirit of truth, have from time to time broken away. The cramming system, so justly denounced by thinking minds as one of the most far-reaching defects of the present school system, is a mark of papal education wherever it may be found. And probably no generation has passed which has not heard some voice lifted against this pernicious practice of the schoolroom. The God of heaven recognizes that the human mind contains the highest possibilities of earth; the child is a part of himself; and when wrong methods of education are used in dealing with developing minds, He, the head of the body, of which we are members, feels the hurt; so it is that Christian education is an emanation from the mind of God.

Montaigne, speaking of education in the sixteenth century, said: “It is the custom of schoolmasters to be eternally thundering in their pupils’ ears, as if they were pouring into a funnel, while the pupils’ business is only to repeat what their masters have said.” He is taught that “a tutor ... should, according to the capacity he has to deal with, put it [the child’s mind] to the test, permitting his pupil himself to taste and relish things, and of himself to choose and discern them.... Too much learning stifles the soul, just as plants are stifled by too much moisture, and lamps by too much oil. Our pedants plunder knowledge from books, and carry it on the tips of their lips, just as birds carry seeds to feed their young.... We toil and labor only to _stuff the memory_, but leave the _conscience and understanding unfurnished and void_.”

[Sidenote: Twentieth century schools cram]

As late as January, 1900, Edward Bok, editor of the _Ladies’ Home Journal_, wrote concerning the cramming process of the popular schools: “Do American men and women realize that in five cities of our country alone there were, during the last school term, _over sixteen thousand children_ between the ages of eight and fourteen taken out of the public schools because their nervous systems were wrecked, and their minds were incapable of going on any further in the infernal cramming system which exists to-day in our schools?... Conservative medical men who have given their lives to the study of children place the number whose health is shattered by overstudy at more than 50,000 each year.... It is cramming, cramming, cramming. A certain amount of ‘ground must be gone over,’ as it is usually called. Whether the child is physically able to work the ‘ground’ does not enter into the question.”

The writer dwells upon the evils of night study, and continues: “True reform always begins at the root of all evils, and the root of the evil of home study lies in the cramming system.”

[Sidenote: Mrs. Lew Wallace on cramming]

Mrs. Lew Wallace says: “Go into any public school, and you will see girls pallid as day lilies and boys with flat chests and the waxen skin that has been named the school complexion. Every incentive and stimulus is held out; dread of blame, love of praise, prizes, medals, badges, the coveted flourish in the newspapers—the strain never slackens.... The burden is _books_. The tasks imposed on the young are fearful. The effort seems to be to make text-books as difficult and complicated as possible instead of smoothing the hill so high and hard to climb.”

In her characteristic style, Mrs. Wallace condemns the usual methods of teaching arithmetic and language:—

“Said a mother, ‘Two and two are what?’”

“The boy hesitated.

“‘Surely you know that two and two make four.’

“‘Yes, mama; but I am trying to remember the process.’

“Process, indeed!...

“One day Mary was bending over a tablet writing words on both sides of a straight line, like multiplied numerators and denominators.

“‘What are you at now?’ asked grandma.

“Mary answered with pride, ‘I am diagraming.’

“‘In the name of sense, what’s diagraming?’

“‘It’s mental discipline. Miss Cram says I have a fine mind that needs developing. Look here, grandma, now this is the correct placing of elements. _Fourscore_ and _seven_ are joined by the word _and_, a subordinate connective copulative conjunction. It modifies _years_, the attribute of the preposition. _Ago_ is a modal verb of past time. The root of the first clause is—.

“‘Why, that’s Lincoln’s speech at Gettysburg. I keep it in my work-basket and know it by heart.’

“‘Indeed! Well, _ours_ is a simple personal—.’

“‘That’s enough. If President Lincoln had been brought up on such stuff, that speech would never have been written. He called a noun a noun, and was done with it.’”[173]

Montaigne could scarcely have given a more vivid description had he seen the grind of modern education, where grades are strictly kept, and all children, the strong and the tender alike, are forced through the same process. There is no relief save in dropping by the wayside when disease fastens its tendrils on the human frame.

Against this system all educational reformers have striven, but it remains with us still. Christian parents, could they see the relative value of soul and mental culture, would demand the establishment of a new order of things. Christian education alone can effect a cure.

[Sidenote: Nature-study to prevent cramming]

Comenius strove to correct this error by the introduction of nature-study. He says: “The right instruction of youth does not consist in cramming them with a mass of words, phrases, sentences, and opinions collected from authors, but in unfolding the understanding, that many little streams may flow therefrom as from a living fountain.... Why shall we not, instead of dead books, open the living book of nature? Not the shadows of things, but the things themselves, which make an impression on the senses and the imagination, are to be brought before youth. By actual observation, not by a verbal description of things, must instruction begin.... Men must be led as far as possible to draw their wisdom, not from books, but from a consideration of heaven and earth, oaks and beeches; that is, they must know and examine things themselves, and not simply be contented with the observations and testimony of others.”

His fundamental principles were, “Education is a development of the whole man,” and “Many studies are to be avoided as dissipating the mental strength.”

[Sidenote: Modern science study and doubt]

A long stride was taken by Comenius toward breaking the mechanical teaching of the papacy. The error into which his followers fall is in making nature the all in all, failing to recognize the Word of God as the only guide and interpreter of natural phenomena. This mistake has led modern schools to take the position in science studies which is described in the following words by Frank S. Hoffman, professor of philosophy in one of America’s leading theological schools: “Every man, because he is a man, is endowed with powers for forming judgments, and he is placed in this world to develop and apply those powers to all the objects with which he comes in contact.”[174] In such words does he plainly state that human reason is the means by which man is to obtain his wisdom. Then follows his explanation of the method of procedure when reason has been thus exalted. These are his words: “In every sphere of investigation he [man] should _begin with doubt_, and the student will make the most rapid progress _who has acquired THE ART OF DOUBTING WELL_.”

Suppose, now, that the subject under consideration is some newly discovered natural phenomenon, and the student of nature wishes to investigate. According to Professor Hoffman, a modern theologian, and hence a teacher, he must “begin with doubt, and the student will make the most rapid progress who has acquired the art of doubting well.” Christian education, in contrast with this method, says, “Through faith we understand.”

[Sidenote: Methods in Sciences and theology]

That this method of study—to begin with doubt—is not only applicable to the natural sciences, but to the study of spiritual truths also, Professor Hoffman continues: “We ask that every student of theology take up the subject precisely as he would any other science: _that he begin with doubt_, and carefully weigh the arguments for every doctrine, accepting or rejecting each assertion according as the balance of probabilities is for or against it.... We believe that even the teachings of Jesus should be viewed from this standpoint, and should be accepted or rejected on the ground of their inherent reasonableness.”

Thus the spirit of doubt with which the child is taught to study nature, goes with him through all his school years; it grows with his growth; and if he enters a theological school to prepare for the ministry, he is confronted by the same method in the investigation of the teachings of Christ. What wonder that the results of modern education are a class of infidels and skeptics?

The words of President Harper, of Chicago University, are worth repeating: “It is difficult to prophesy what the results of our present method of educating the youth will be in fifty years. We are training the mind in the public schools, but the moral side in the child’s nature is almost entirely neglected.” Not only is it neglected, but faith is trampled to the ground, and human reason exalted above its prostrate form. “_When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?_” A pertinent question, indeed, for educators to answer.

[Sidenote: The method of “doubt” is Socratic]

This method of doubting is papal, and can be traced directly to Socrates, the Greek. Of him, we read: “Socrates was not a ‘philosopher,’ nor yet a ‘teacher,’ but rather an ‘educator,’ having for his function ‘to rouse, persuade, and rebuke’.... _Socrates’ theory of education had for its basis a PROFOUND AND CONSISTENT CONCEPTION._”[175]

In dealing with his students, the same authority thus states his method of procedure: “Taking his departure from some apparently remote principle or proposition to which the respondent yielded a ready assent, Socrates would draw from it an unexpected but undeniable consequence which was plainly inconsistent with the opinion impugned. In this way he brought his interlocutor to pass judgment upon himself, and reduced him to a state _of doubt_ or perplexity. ‘Before I ever met you,’ says Meno, in a dialogue which Plato called by his name, ‘I was told _that you spent your time in doubting and leading others to doubt:_ and it is a fact that your witcheries and spells have brought me to that condition; you are like the torpedo; as it benumbs anyone who approaches and touches it, so do you.’”

We can readily trace the connection between the Socratic method of doubting and the same method as advocated by the professor of the theological school, for “his [Socrates’s] practice led to the Platonic revival,” and the Platonic system of education and its introduction in modern schools has been too thoroughly discussed in previous pages to need repetition here.

[Sidenote: “Doubt” taught in modern schools]

The Socratic method of teaching—the development of doubt—seems to characterize much of the teaching of to-day, if we can judge from an article which appeared in the _Outlook_, written by the editor, Lyman Abbott. The educational work is thus described:—

“The educational processes of our time—possibly of all time—are largely analytical and critical. They consist chiefly in analyzing the subjects brought to the student for examination, separating them into their constituent parts, considering how they have been put together, and sitting in judgment on the finished fabric or on the process by which it has been constructed.

“Thus all, or nearly all, study is analytical, critical,—a process of inquiry and investigation. The process presupposes an inquiring if not a skeptical mood. _Doubt_ is the pedagogue which leads the pupil to _knowledge_.

“Does he study the human body?—Dissection and anatomy are the foundations of his study. Chemistry?—The laboratory furnishes him the means of analysis and inquiry into physical substances. History?—He questions the statements which have been unquestioned heretofore, ransacks libraries for authorities in ancient volumes and more ancient documents. Literature?—The poem which he read only to enjoy he now subjects to the scalpel, inquires whether it really is beautiful, why it is beautiful, how its meter should be classified, how its figures have been constructed. Philosophy?—He subjects his own consciousness to a process of vivisection in an endeavor to ascertain the physiology and anatomy of the human spirit; brings his soul into the laboratory that he may learn its chemical constituents.

“Meanwhile the constructive and synthetic process is relegated to a second place, or lost sight of altogether. Does he study medicine?—He gives more attention to diagnosis than to therapeutics; to the analysis of disease than to the problem how to overcome it. Law?—He spends more time in analyzing cases than in developing power to grasp great principles and apply them in the administration of justice to varying conditions. The classics?—It is strange if he has not at graduation spent more weeks in the syntax and grammar of the language than he has spent hours in acquiring and appreciating the thought and the spirit of the great classic authors. It has been well and truly said of the modern student that he does not study grammar to understand Homer, he reads Homer to get the Greek grammar. His historical study has given him dates, events, a mental historical chart; perhaps, too, it has given him a scholar’s power to discriminate between the true and the false, the historical and the mythical in ancient legends: but not to many has it given an understanding of the significance of events, a comprehension of, or even new light upon, the real meaning of the life of man on the earth. Has he been studying philosophy?—Happy he is if, as a result of his analysis of self-consciousness, he has not become morbid respecting his own inner life, or cynically skeptical concerning the inner life of others.

“It is doubtless in the realm of ethics and religion that the disastrous results of a too exclusive analytical process and a too exclusive critical spirit are seen. Carrying the same spirit, applying the same methods, to the investigation of religion, the Bible becomes to him simply a collection of ancient literature, whose sources, structure, and forms he studies, whose spirit, he, at least for the time, forgets; worship is a ritual whose origin, rise, and development he investigates; whose _real significance_ as an expression of penitence, gratitude, and consecration he loses sight of altogether. _Faith_ is a series of tenets whose biological development he traces; or a form of consciousness whose relation to brain action he inquires into; or whose growth by evolutionary processes out of earlier states he endeavors to retrace.

“Vivisection is almost sure sooner or later to become a post-mortem; and the subject of it, whether it be a flower, a body, an author, or an experience, generally dies under the scalpel. It is for this reason that so many students in school, academy, and college lose not merely their theology, which is perhaps no great loss, but their religion, which is an irreparable loss, while they are acquiring an education.”[176]

[Sidenote: Ministers accept Socratic reasoning]

This spirit of doubt characterizes the teachings of modern higher critics. The critical study of the Bible, Dr. Newton tells us, “has disposed forever of the claim that it is such an oracle of God as we can submit our intellects to unquestioningly.” “Dr. Briggs says that there are three co-ordinate authorities—the church, the Bible, and reason. ‘But when they disagree, which is to be the final court of appeal?’ asks Dr. Newton. ‘They do disagree widely to-day.’ Dr. Newton believes that the ultimate court of appeal is reason,—not the reason of Thomas Paine and the present-day realistic rationalists, but rather the ‘_Divine Reason_’ _of Socrates and of Plato_.... Reason in this sense means not merely or chiefly the rationalizing faculty, but the moral nature—the whole spiritual being of man. ‘It is what conscience teaches, as well as what intellect affirms, that, together with the voice of the heart, forms the trinity of true authority—of reason.’”[177]

[Sidenote: Secular methods and religious truths]

This is indeed the exaltation of reason. There is, in such a system, no room whatever for faith. W. T. Harris, United States Commissioner of Education, writing of Sunday-schools, attributes their decline to the adoption, by Sunday-school teachers, of the methods employed in the secular schools. A few words from him will suffice. He says: “With the spectacle of the systematic organization of the secular schools and the improvement of methods of teaching before them, the leaders in the church have endeavored to perfect the methods of the religious instruction of youth. They have met the following dangers which lay in their path; namely, first, the danger of adopting methods of instruction in religion which were fit and proper only for secular instruction; second, the selection of religious matter for the course of study which did not lead in a most direct manner toward vital religion, although it would readily take on a pedagogic form.”[178]

In order to show the reason why methods which are perfectly proper in giving secular education are not adapted to religious instruction, Mr. Harris explains: “The secular school gives positive instruction. It teaches mathematics, natural science, history, and language. Knowledge of the facts can be precise and accurate, and a similar knowledge of the principles can be arrived at. The self-activity of the pupil is ... demanded by the teacher of the secular school. The pupil must not take things on authority, but must test and verify.... He must trace out the mathematical demonstrations.... He must learn the method of investigating facts.... The spirit of the secular school therefore comes to be an enlightening one, although not of the highest order.”

The whole tendency of secular education, according to Mr. Harris, is to develop a spirit of investigation and proof. This, he says, is a means of enlightening, but not of the highest order. The highest means of enlightening the mind is by faith. That is God’s method. Christian schools must avoid the secular methods of instruction, adopting in their stead that highest form of enlightening,—faith. That separates Christian schools from secular schools in methods as well as in the subject matter taught.

[Sidenote: Secular methods require material proof]