358 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



if you please, that this is true ; it must also be admitted, deplored if 

 you like, that a great many tax-payers do not believe its truth at all. 

 But those who are represented by the writer quoted never would be 

 willing to have the life of Jesus taught in the same manner as the life 

 of Caesar. They would not favor, for example, a fair setting forth 

 of the arguments for and those against the miracles recorded in the 

 gospels. They would be utterly horrified at any criticism of the char- 

 acter of Jesus. They would not allow him to be compared with 

 Sakya-muni, as Csesar might be compared with Alexander. The spirit 

 in which they ask to have the life of Christ taught is that expressed 

 by President Seelye in another part of the same article : " Why, then, 

 on any consideration are not the gospels as proper a text-book in our 

 schools as are Caesar's ' Commentai'ies ' ? And if the teacher of the latter 

 is to know them ; if we make thorough inquiry respecting a teacher's 

 qualifications for his task in other things, why not also here? If he 

 does not, in the light of modern criticism, know that the story of the 

 gospels is in the main true, he is ignorant ; or if knowing its truth he 

 would hide it, he is false ; and in either case not fit to teach." There 

 is an ambiguity in the expression " in the main true," which allows of 

 wide differences. But no doubt the writer would intend to make his 

 statement cover the miraculous events recorded in the gospels, cer- 

 tainly the story of the resurrection of Jesus. Now, upon this point it 

 is to be feared that the ignorance lies on the side of the author cited. 

 He says the historical accuracy of the gospels is " no longer doubted 

 by intelligent persons." Who, having a tolerably large acquaintance 

 of " intelligent persons," does not know that a considerable fraction of 

 them disbelieve and a still larger fraction doubt the statements in the 

 gospel record respecting the resurrection of Jesus ? This is evidenced 

 by journals, reviews, and even by religious organizations. If, now, a 

 person who does not believe this account is not "intelligent" but is 

 "ignorant " or "false" and "not fit to teach"; those who are fitted to 

 teach the life of Jesus in the schools are only the ones who accept a 

 particular " orthodox " view of Bible literature and arc blind enough 

 to be prevented from seeing intelligent difference of opinion ! It is 

 not the life of Jesus that a religious sect wants taught, but a particu- 

 lar theory of the life of Jesus. The Roman Catholics would like to 

 have inculcated a similar theory of the Virgin Mary. How, under such 

 circumstances, is it possible to teach the life of Jesus in the public 

 schools? Until an agreement can be reached upon the platform of a 

 thoroughly fair, critical instruction in religion, giving to believers and 

 disbelievers alike the benefit of their views in equal degree, there is 

 no other course open in a country of religious liberty than to interdict 

 religious teaching in public institutions of learning. 



Unless, indeed, we return to the rule of force. Listen to what 

 President Seelye says, in concluding the article above quoted from : 

 "Hence I say that the state should provide for instruction in the 



