Chapter I

_The Bible and the Sects--Shall Any Version of the Book Be Placed in This Country’s Common Schools?_

A STATEMENT OF THE CASE. A stupendous effort is now being nationally made by a particular and special class of our citizens, to place the Bible, the text book of the Christian religion, in the curriculum of our public schools. From the outset, there arises this curious fact: It is that many Christian sects, one of them being the largest in number of communicants, to say nothing of individual Christians, have strenuously opposed the measure. The Jews, “unto whom were committed the oracles of God” (Romans iii, 2) have also expressed their disapprobation. Then add to these about two-thirds of our population who profess no religion, and we find the movement limited to a small section of our people. The fact that advocates of enforced Bible reading are so enthusiastic, so intolerant of criticism and opposition, and that they would compel the use of the Bible by law causes us to inquire seriously into the question. Then the intense opposition of religionists as well as of those professing no religion in particular, causes us to conclude that the _propriety_ of such an inclusion in our public school instruction is the main issue to be considered.

There arises before us the further fact that one class of people are vigorously determined upon the use in the schools of a book of which they are the partisans, while the world contains many more books of the same character. Still another, that those who accept the book as an authority are not agreed as to which edition or which version is the correct one. Over this controversies have arisen, resulting in law suits which have finally had to be decided by supreme courts. Here we might surmise the cause of the intense opposition of some to the use of the Bible in the schools, and of further discontent and controversy should it be placed there. The advocates of the measure, if they think themselves able to put it over, would make Bible reading compulsory. Should they fail in this, they are agreeable that it should be read at the discretion of the teacher. Should they still fail, they will ask that _extracts_ be read. As a last resort, they will plead that it be not _excluded_ and that it be read “without comment.” They are even willing to concede that no child shall be compelled to take part in the Bible reading exercise against the will of its parents.

Why, unlike any other school book, should it be read “without comment”? Why the exception? The Bible from whatever view we take it, above all other books, to be understood, must be commented upon and explained. The whole presents a curious medley of circumstances and positions which could hardly be duplicated when any other book is proposed for use in the school room. All goes to prove that the advocates of the proposal are very enthusiastic and determined to force the book in the schools, on the best terms that they can obtain. Should any other book be proposed for a course of public school education, under the same conditions, no one will deny that its use would be unhesitatingly rejected.[1]

[1] Religionists in some places are now opposing the use of Wells’ “Outline of History” in high schools and colleges because some of its views are not orthodox and conventional. Yet they, a minority, would force their Bible by law upon all.

IS THE BIBLE A RELIGIOUS AND SECTARIAN BOOK?

It is not our purpose to take part in any of the theological controversies that in the past or at the present have raged around the Bible. Yet, as the teaching of religion seems to be the desideratum of the advocates of Bible reading in the schools, as we shall later prove; and the opposition to such teaching on the part of others the cause of the opposition to such reading, we are compelled to ask and answer the query, Is the Bible a religious book? The meaning of the word “religion” has been fixed by the best lexicographers and has been so utilized by the best writers.

“The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny; to whom obedience, service and honor are due.”--Webster’s International.

“An acknowledgment of our obligation to God as our creator, with a feeling of reverence and love, and consequent duty or obedience to him.”--Worcester.

“A belief in an invisible superhuman power (or powers) conceived of after the analogy of the human spirit on which (or whom) man regards himself as dependent.”--The Standard Dictionary.

“Any system of faith or worship.”--Imperial Dictionary.

“Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please a divine ruling power.”--Oxford Dictionary.

We are aware that a class of modern thinkers define and understand religion differently, as does R. B. Westbrook in The Eliminator, page 12: “We use the word religion as it was used by Cicero, in the sense of _Scruple_, implying the consciousness of a natural obligation wholly irrespective of what one may believe concerning the gods.”

We must say that in the face of the five definitions first given, added to the understanding and use of the word by religionists themselves, a revolution in human thought and in the meaning of the English language must take place before this can be seriously accepted as the correct, understood, prevailing definition.

Following these guides, the best we can obtain, let us ask, Is the Bible a religious book? Is its chief object the teaching of religion? We think we need adduce no argument to prove that were those portions of the Bible which inculcate religious doctrines eliminated, the fly-leaves of the book alone would hold most of what remains. No one, and least of all a Christian, will deny that it teaches “a belief in an invisible superhuman power (or powers) conceived of after the analogy of the human spirit”; or that it teaches “a divine ruling power,” “to whom obedience, service and honor are due.”

The first three of the ten commandments are strictly religious and in no way concern morality. They teach the absurd doctrine that the God of the ancient Hebrews was the only God worthy of worship.

The sermon on the mount, which is perhaps more free from strict religious teaching than any other portion of the Bible, yet says, “Seek ye _first_ the kingdom of God and _his righteousness_ and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. vi, 33). Here, again, the Jewish God is referred to. The most beautiful of Jesus’ teachings are his eulogy and defense of children. Even here he strictly maintains religious doctrines, as when he says, in Matthew xviii, 6: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones _which believe in me_,” etc.

“In thus looking at the Bible from a distinctly religious point of view, we are in perfect harmony with its writers; even with such of them as adopt the narrative style, and will therefore engage the greatest share of our attention. For when the books of the Old Testament were set aside and preserved as a sacred book by the Jews, and those of the New Testament were added to them by the Christians, it was with no idea of drawing knowledge of nature or history from them, but because they recognized them as the rule of faith and conduct; and in the same way the writers themselves prepared their works and gave publicity to them, not simply or chiefly in order to make their readers accurately acquainted with the past, but to promulgate and recommend what seemed to them to be religious truth.” (“Bible for Learners,” Vol. 1, page 5.) Hence, however much Bible reading advocates may cavil about the book as “literature” or “the fountain of morality,” there can be no legitimate question of its object being to teach a particular religion, and that its purpose in the school room is to do the same.

Let us now ask another question, Is the Bible a sectarian book? Let us first state that there is no such thing as a cosmopolitan or universal religion. Prof. Max Müller, perhaps the greatest authority upon the science of religion, has said: “Religion is a mental faculty which, independent of, nay, in spite of, sense and reason, enables man to apprehend the infinite _under different names and disguises_.”

Hence, man, in an effort to understand the infinite, has formed not one but many religions; therefore we have Buddhism, Brahmanism, Shintoism, Judaism, the mythology of the Greeks and Romans and finally Christianism and Mohammedanism. In recent years there has been developed Agnosticism which holds that the infinite is incomprehensible. Religions and Bibles are all sectarian to the devotees of other religions who do not accept them as true or authoritative.

In the face of this broad truth, those who advocate reading the Bible in the public school deny that it is sectarian. They would narrow their definition of “sect” to that of the Standard Dictionary, which defines it as “a body of persons distinguished by peculiarities of faith and practice from other bodies adhering to the same general system.” But Christianity consists of different bodies distinguished by wide “peculiarities of faith and practice.” Some of these have their own versions of the Bible, while others base their peculiarities upon different interpretations and particular sections of the same version. The widely divergent forms of Christianity, from Roman Catholicism to Unitarianism, have their foundation and different versions and interpretations. Those holding to one set of doctrines and practices accept that version which sustains their contentions and reject those which do not. Those making the nation-wide propaganda to place the Bible in the schools are the Evangelical Protestants, who accept the King James version. The question, “Is the King James version sectarian?” has caused the long controversy which courts have been called on to settle when opponents of Bible reading have taken legal action to keep it out of the schools.

There is another English version of the Bible called the “Douay version,” which is accepted by Roman Catholics, who not only deny that the King James version is the correct one, but affirm that it teaches dangerous and damning errors. Protestants retaliate by making the same charges against the Douay version. Therefore, to either one of these, the principal divisions of Christianity, the Bible of the other is sectarian.

Let us give illustrations of the widely variant readings in these two principal English versions of the Bible. When we have done so our readers can perceive why such a bitter controversy has arisen between the partisans of the different transcripts. He will also see the folly and injustice of trying to force a book, which has been the center of so much bitter animosity, into public schools supported by citizens of all religious beliefs, who are compelled by the law of the land to send their children there. We will take just a few illustrations from hundreds.

In the King James Version 1 Corinthians xv, 51, is translated: “Behold, I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.” The Douay Version renders the same verse, “Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: _but we shall not all be changed_.” Luke ii, 14, is translated in the King James, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth _peace to men of good will_.” The Protestant “Revised Version” gives it still different:

“Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth _peace among men in whom he is well pleased_.”

The King James Version makes Matthew vi, 11, read, “Give us this day our daily bread.” The Douay version says, “Give us this day our _super-substantial_ bread.”

We now come to one difference of translation, which perhaps above all others is the most startling and would arouse the greatest of the theological controversies. Matthew iii, 1–2, reads, in the King James Version: “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The Douay Version gives it an entirely different meaning when it makes the second verse read: “_Do penance_: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This controverted word occurs in the New Testament fifty times and is so differently translated in the King James and Douay Versions. In the Catholic church penance is one of the seven sacraments, while Protestants do not recognize it at all, hence one looks upon the Bible of the other as false and as a teacher of false doctrines.

A more startling fact arises when we discover that not only are Catholics and Protestants divided in opinion as to what the Bible means and as to which version gives the correct meaning, but on this point Protestant Bible scholars differ widely among themselves. This was so notorious that in 1883 a “new version” was given the world. While it corrected some mistakes of translation, it was far from being acknowledged as satisfactory. We will here give just one illustration, selected from many, of differences of translation among Protestant Biblical scholars. Job xix, 25–27, is rendered in the King James Version: “For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.” This passage is to be found in the Episcopal and other orthodox church funeral rituals. The “redeemer” is supposed to be Christ, and Job is supposed to refer to his soul in heaven. This is done in defiance of the fact that Job in other passages states that death ends all. (See vii, 7–10; xiv, 7–12 and xxxiv, 15.) Following are the translations of a number of well-known Biblical scholars, which give it a different meaning and state an entirely different situation:

“Yet I know that my Vindicator liveth
And will stand at length upon the earth;
And though with my skin this body be wasted away,
Yet in my flesh shall I see God.
Yea, I shall see him my friend;
My eyes shall behold him no longer an adversary;
For this my soul panteth within me.”

(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Noyes of Harvard Divinity School.)

“But I know that my avenger liveth;
Though it be at the end upon my dust,
My witness shall avenge these things,
And a curse alight upon mine enemies.”

(Translation of Dr. Dillon, in Skeptics of the Old Testament.)

“For I know that my Avenger liveth
And that hereafter he shall stand upon the earth;
And though after my skin this (flesh) be destroyed,
Yet even without my flesh shall I see God;
Whom I shall see for myself.
And mine eyes shall behold, and not another--
Though my vitals are wasting away within me.”

(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Albert Barnes, Presbyterian divine and commentator.)

“As for me, I know it--my Avenger liveth,
And (lying) in the dust I shall receive his pledge;
Shaddai will bring to pass my desire,
And as my justifier I shall see God.”

(Translation of the Rev. Dr. T. K. Cheyne, Editor of The Encyclopedia Biblica.)

This is one of the many passages in the Bible which in the King James Version has been twisted to meet doctrinal ends. Again we repeat, that were any other book containing so many controversial meanings, especially among those who maintain its efficiency and credibility, offered for use in the school room, it would be rejected at once.

Let us be honest with ourselves and with one another, and admit the true motive of those who prolong this agitation to place the Bible in the public schools. We have said that they represent the Evangelical Protestant churches.

The Catholic church maintains its separate schools for the purpose of teaching its children the common branches of knowledge side by side with its religious doctrines. Protestants send their children to the public schools, relying upon their churches and Sunday schools alone for religious instruction. As their churches and Sunday schools have failed to arouse sufficient interest, they now want to make use of the public schools for religious propaganda. Hence their Jesuitical attempts to have laws passed forcing their Bible into these institutions. Quite naturally in a country whose national Constitution, as well as practically all its state constitutions, proclaims divorce between church and state, the Catholic, the Jew, the Agnostic, and citizens of other opposing beliefs protest.