SCIENCE. 



415 



tory classes and 106 in the higher classes. Thus it can 

 be seen that, as institutions of higher learning, the at- 

 tendance on the new church colleges is but 41 per cent 

 of that on the State colleges. Hence, if the law of con- 

 gress which called into existence these State colleges be 

 a failure, how much greater the failure of that sec- 

 tarian spirit which called these 106 denominational col- 

 leges into existence. 



Another remarkable effect of this movement toward 

 popularizing higher education in America was the reno- 

 vation and elevation of the church colleges, then existing, 

 and the establishment of numerous others with much 

 broader and a more liberal scope of instruction. This of 

 itself has resulted in immense benefit to education, as 

 well as to the church in America. This effect is as im- 

 portant as the creation of the State schools themselves. 

 The church has always been the principal agent of 

 higher education, at least in the United States, and the 

 recognition, by these institutions, of the great underlying 

 truths of nature, and of the ministration of her laws to 

 the daily comfort of man, is an epoch in the history of 

 the nineteenth century, which, in its effects on the race, 

 will exceed all other achievements of the "new educa- 

 tion." It will contribute not only to the spread of 

 science, but also to the spread of Christianity, particu- 

 larly among those intelligent classes of the people who 

 have been hostile to it, or indifferent, because of the atti- 

 tude of the Christian church toward the truths of mod- 

 ern science. If the church once recognizes the fact that 

 every enlightened nation is 'in arms against its supine 

 adherence to mediaeval education, and condescends to 

 place itself in harmony with the truths of creation as well 

 as revelation, one of the greatest obstacles to the evan- 

 gelization of the world will be removed. It is easy to 

 see that the material aspects of modern civilization are 

 rapidly penetrating unchristian and uncivilized nations, 

 outstripping the church in evangelizing them. How 

 much better it would be if the two agencies could go 

 harmoniously- together into the same field, co-operating 

 to accomplish the same end. 



What has been said, so far, relates to the past. 

 A few matters of fact have been stated. They pertain to 

 the title, by which the State received, and holds, the ed- 

 ucational structure which she has occupied. But Presi- 

 dent John not only disputes the title, but also the right 

 of the State to occupy this field. We admit that force 

 does not always coincide with right, and that, although 

 nine points in the law are established when peaceful pos- 

 session is proven, the tenth point may have the right on 

 its side. Let us enquire, then, if there be a consistent 

 reasonableness in the State's attempting and continuing 

 to do this work. We shall not attempt here the justifi- 

 cation of the State in establishing and maintaining primary 

 and secondary schools. It is not demanded. In passing, 

 however, we will except President John's definition of 

 the duty of the State to educate. He fixes it at the 

 " limit of necessity to preserve its own existence." So 

 let it be. We shall recur to it again. But, specifically, 

 as relates to higher education, the leading objections that ' 

 have been urged are the following : (1) The personality 

 of the State. President Elliot has fully presented this 

 objection. It is foreign to the free spirit of American 

 republicanism to witness the controlling influence and 

 authority ot the State in social and educational affairs. 

 It smacks of the divine right of kings, and is a reminder 

 of the despotism of Europe, two centuries ago. Now all 

 this may be an objection in monarchical governments, 

 but it seems rather strange that any promising edu- 

 cator in republican America should forget that here 

 the people are the State. There is no kingly personality 

 interfering with the domestic and social institutions of 

 the community. The authority that controls is the ag- 

 gregate will of the community. The chief right of the 

 State's power is to conserve this aggregate will. Such 

 an expression of the will of the people is voluntaryism in 



the discharge of its highest organic function, and is not 

 "paternal government." (2) Again it is objected to 

 State education, that it tends to uniformity, and not to 

 variety, reducing all pupils to the same pattern, and 

 smothering the aspirations of genius which spurns con- 

 ventionalities and revels in the gratification of its own 

 idiosyncrasies. This objection is more valid in the lower 

 schools than in the higher. In the higher schools it is 

 very questionable if the institutions of the church would 

 be as lenient with idiosyncrasies in pupils, as those of 

 the State. Judging from the past it would be folly for a 

 student with an idiosyncrasy of genius to flee to a church 

 college for its indulgence. We cannot see how this ob- 

 jection applies more fully in State colleges than to church 

 colleges. In fact it is one of the necessary sacrifices 

 which an individual has to make, when he becomes one 

 of an organized community. He receives the benefits of 

 combined effort in all directions, and he has to surrender 

 the personal freedom to act in certain directions in 

 which his action would transgress the aggregate good of 

 the community. The schools are for the average pupil — 

 both State schools and church schools — and he with an 

 idiosyncrasy will look in vain for a place to disport him- 

 self. (3). It is urged again that it is not economical. 

 Because, forsooth, a sectarian zeal demands denomina- 

 tional colleges, and "cannot conscientiously accept this 

 service of the State," and will maintain colleges of its 

 own, therefore the State cannot rightfully duplicate 

 these institutions and tax the denominations for their 

 maintenance. Not to mention the brevity of the time 

 elapsed since the sects were willing to " do the same 

 kind of work " as the State University, it is enough to 

 reply that this argument applies against all State organi- 

 zation for education. The Roman Catholic insists on 

 maintaining his own hospitals, and objects to taxation for 

 public schools. The Atheist opposes the public tax be- 

 cause in these schools is taught the idea of a God, the 

 Jew because the New Testament is read, or the Protes- 

 tant because it is not. This argument against the pub- 

 lic schools may be applied with equal reason against the 

 State's management of the deaf and mute. At least, 

 certain medical fraternities might use it because they 

 cannot "conscientiously" endorse nor accept the methods 

 of treatment practised by the State. (4). But the fourth 

 objection, after all, is the chief one urged by the oppo- 

 nents of State schools — they do not correctly indoctrinate 

 the student in matters of religious dogma. It is said 

 that " the State by self-imitation cannot teach religion." 

 This assertion the State accepts, and would fain leave it 

 to the proper agent, yet the State is not therefore "pro- 

 hibited by statutory limitation from throwing the least 

 safeguard around the minds of our youth, " which is one 

 of the surprising inferences of President John. The 

 State in its educational operations will always be gov- 

 erned by the aggregate sentiment of the people. Those 

 fundamental ideas of religion, which are accepted by all 

 sects, the State institutions will be compelled to teach. 

 If, peradventure, for a time they happen to lapse from 

 this high duty, the will of the community will sooner or 

 later be restored. They are creatures of the people. 

 They will teach what the people can agree on shall be 

 taught. While they must not teach sectarian dogma, 

 they must not become centres of atheism nor of infidelity. 

 If they did either, they would not long survive. Like 

 the schools of Switzerland, they are based on the 

 " principles of Christianity and democracy." The spec- 

 ial, political and denominational application of these 

 broad platforms is left to party politics, and to various 

 sects. 



We venture the assertion, however, that when the 

 true kernel of this objection is found, it will not consist 

 in a fear of the non-inculcation of these truths by the 

 State, but in a jealousy of the sects, one against the 

 other. Education by the church has been considered es- 

 sentially the training of the youth and doctrines of the 



