THE NEW SCIIAFF-HERZOG
of religious instruction gave them the character of public schools. Similar si-hools were fouiuied in the country villages. All these scIkxjIs werv quite elementary in character, religic)n, reailing, ami writing forming practically the only subjects of instruction; but for more than two centuries they offered the only educational opportunity to tlie great majority of the population.
Eiveii such schools could exist only under favorable circumstances. Before the Thirty Years' War there were not many of them left; and after the war, when the iileas of Ratke and Comenius began to I)j effective, the tendency was to try something new, rather than to reestablish the old
3. Pietism, system. In this movement the Piet-
ists took the lead. The public school, as revived by them in the interest of religious education, was introduced by various German states, but first by Prussia in 1763. The State recognized the service of the Church, and even entrusted the supervision of these schools to the clergy, who were regarded as officials of the State. The example
of Prussia was followed by Bavaria
4. Compul- (1S02), Denmark (1814), Austria sory Edu- (1869), and France (1882), with the
cation. enforcement of school-attendance.
Holland, England, and the United States have attained all that is necessary by less incisive measures. In Italy and Spain education is compulsory only from the sixth to the ninth year, and wretched conditions prevail even to-day in the Roman Catholic states of South America. In Russia attendance at an elementary school shortens the period of military service.
Ever since the State took charge of elementary education and made it compulsory there has been a movement in progress toward the emancipation of the schools from the clergy; and for over a hundred years three questions have been in dispute: (1) Is compulsory school-attendance consistent with religious instruction? (2) Ought the school to be denominational or undenominational? (3) Does the control of the school belong to the clergy or to trained schoolmen?
In principle, religion and coercion exclude each other. This is a matter about which Protestantism is now becoming more sensitive, and it is possible that the present protest against compulsory religious instruction may develop into a general protest against all enforced culture. Of course, no similar protest is heard from Rome. The Roman Church, accustomed to the maxim "compel them to come in," is
striving for power, and, for this reason,
5. Religion seeks control of the schools. It is and Coer- willing for the State to enforce educa-
cion Ex- tion, so long as the Church is benefited elusive. thereby. It has no feeling for the inner conflict between compulsory education and freedom of conscience, regarding coercion as necessary in view of present social and religious conditions. So much the stronger, however, is this feehng in Protestantism. To be sure, in the training of children a certain amount of coercion is necessary, since the pathway of education leads through obedience to freedom. Particularly in religious instruction, though, is it
desirable to keep the end in view and gradually diminish coercion as freedom is approach>'d. The custom of the early Church to leave religious inslruction to the family justified itself. Even if it is evident that the rehgious instruction of the family needs to be supplemented, still it is clear that the school can not replace the family, since the teacher always represents the law, while religion requires freedom. Tliere have been many school-teachers of large religious nature who have touched the hearts and consciences of their pupils without employing coercion; but still the fact remains that the prevalence of religion is not due to the religious instruction given in the public schools.
As regards the parents, even in modem states they can be compelled to send their children to schools where religious instruction is given. This is justified on the ground that the children are minors; and that whatever arbitrary control over the children the parents may lose is more than made up for by the mental growth of the children. But while the State can enforce education, the Church is prevented from doing this and must, therefore, protest when its services are thrust upon those who do not want them. An effort has been made to conceal the nature of this
6. Compul- religious coercion by insisting that sory Re- instruction in the Bible has to do with ligious In- historical information only. Wliile
struction such an argument might be apphed not Desir- to mere church history, it is inappliable. cable here. It involves a misunderstanding of the most important part of the subject. Two methods have been employed to escape this difficulty. Either rehgious instruction has been banished from the school entirely; or an effort has been made to modify it to meet the needs of dissenters, which is impossible if they are atheists. If the Church is to exercise educational activity, provision must be made for it. For instance, one whole school-day may be set apart each week for the instruction of youth in religious subjects, as is the case in France. Also in Italy, Holland, England, and some states of the United States the state schools are non-religious in principle. No cogent argument can be brought against such a system, for religious instruction is certainly not the business of the State. After all, the interests of Christianity are furthered by it. By assuming the responsibility of instruction in the usual school branches, the State makes it possible for the Church to concentrate its efforts in the religious field. It is not so much the mere separation of Church and State that seems objectionable as the severing of an old historical union that has richly justified its existence by its works.
This solution of the old problem would relieve the teacher of the embarrassment of teaching things that are possibly not an expression
7. Position of his own inmost convictions — a and Atti- difficulty often experienced by minis-
tude of ters. The teacher should either be al- Teachers. lowed to teach religious subjects in his own way, or else be relieved of the duty entirely. It must be added, however, that this separation of Church and State, in the manner in