success on the score of many conversions, large audiences, and a glittering array of organizations. These criteria are superficial. The man of conscience must go deeper. He must develop, enrich, establish the religious life of his people. He must be an educator. The local church over which he presides should be not only a creator of evangelistic fervors, but a centre of educational activities. The pastor must, in most instances, direct these activities. If he does not accept this responsibility, one half of the necessary work of his church will remain undone. He cannot, by crowds or enthusiasm or sensational devices, make up for such deficiency. Sooner or later the weakness will appear.

There is, perhaps, no field of intellectual activity in which more inspiring and effective work has been done through recent years than in that of religious education. The literature already put forth is of the most stimulating and thought-promoting character. It is remarkable alike for its avoidance of technical phraseology and for its practical suggestiveness. It touches life at every point. It has movement, vision, power. It is rich and helpful to the minister. Yet its very character enjoins him to independent thinking, not to blind discipleship. He must be free in his search for truth, and free in his interpretation of truth. He has a privilege of intellectual leadership which is tremendous. He must speak to others, and train others, out of the experiences and convictions of his own inmost soul, led only and always by the Spirit of God.

In the matter of methods the literature just mentioned is exceedingly valuable. In its study and in the assimilation and development of its teachings, the minister receives new energy and quickening. He finds opportunity, in conference with the leaders of his Sunday School and other organizations, for a gradual reshaping of plans and policies. He discovers new possibilities in the gatherings of his people for the weekly prayer service. His preaching is seen to become more vital, direct and forceful. The ideas involved in such phrases as study classes, normal work, character development, take on new meaning. He enters with helpful and constructive force into the life of the community. True there are many problems, but there can be no progress without problems and the strong man does not shrink from difficulties.

Again, such study secures to the minister a more vital contact with the growing life of the young people of his church and community. The greatest thing the minister can know is the mind of a little child. From this coign of vantage he can go forward to all conquests in the kingdom of God. Every step he can take which will enable him to understand more minutely the complex problems of youth is a step wisely taken, even though it means much toil and sacrifice. One of the most lamentable defects in the church life of the past was its rigid adherence to certain stereotyped forms. With reference both to conversions and the Christian life there was a definite and ironclad theory. A profound conviction of sin was insisted upon, even in the case of the most innocent child.

The prayermeeting type of Christian was the ideal. The most sanctimonious young person was the most hopefully spiritual. A painful selfabasement was an evidence of grace. Introspection was constantly advised. The child who was the most exact reproduction in miniature of the pious adult Christian was the model child. This precocious little person adopted forms of statement natural only to mature experience. They were not a real or vital part of himself. This pattern child was a wonder but not a joy to other children. So the minister, the deacon, or the Sunday-school teacher, was a bete noire to the average healthy life-loving lad or lass. Between the minister and the boys and girls of his flock there was a great gulf fixed. This was bridged only now and then, in revival seasons, when a life-impulse was felt and all life was fused under intense conditions. The minister's cloister days in the theological seminary had blurred or distorted the memory of his own boyhood. So he and his young people lived in different worlds.

But this new movement looks at everything from a different point of view. The swing of things is not metaphysical, but psychological. It seeks not the formal but the real. The leaders are college presidents and teachers, in close contact with great bodies of sturdy American students of all types and all faiths. These men are not formulating theologies in retirement; they are every day bringing theories to the touchstone of life. On the other hand, they do not believe in salvation by pedagogy or psychology, but their studies in these departments and the constant testing of their principles in the practical realm, have enabled them to throw a

flood of light upon the perils and needs, the conditions and oppor

Not that these sciences have
But they have formulated cer-

tunities of childhood and youth. reached their goal. Far from it! tain basic principles, which have received quite general acceptance, and which are exceedingly valuable to the religious teacher.

Lastly the study of this subject of religious education brings the minister into a more intimate fellowship with the central and controlling movements of thought in the direction of a profounder and more spiritual culture. Of what avail is it to thunder against the materialism of the time, if we be not willing to undertake its overthrow by the only certain method? The longest way round is the shortest way home, the only way in this case. It is safe to say that sermon-tirades against the evils of our commercial and political life will not redeem the Republic. There is a quieter way of salvation, and it is more simple. It behooves us, as religious leaders to co-operate heartily with these forces that are making for righteousness. They may be unsensational, but they are becoming mighty.

We err greatly if we suppose that selfishness and greed are the chief signs of the times. The most significant fact of our life is not to be found in the realm of industry nor in that of commerce: it is manifest rather in the zest for culture and in the growth of educational activities. Other ages have been as hungry for gain as the present, but few if any, have been so eager for knowledge. Now the yet more significant fact is the growing and far-spreading interest in religious knowledge. We are in the beginning of this great crusade. This in itself is a cause for rejoicing. To be counted amongst the pioneers in a work of tremendous ethical and spiritual promise is a privilege indeed. It is also a task directly in line with our purposes and ideals. If we fail as religious educators we fail in our own calling, and we deserve to fail. Then a glance at the personnel of our fellowworkers awakens faith. We are not plowing a lonely furrow. Men of the ripest scholarship, the purest character, the finest sympathies, the deepest earnestness, are toiling in this field. There is every incentive to the true minister of Jesus Christ to enter with heartiest zeal into a life-long study of the issues involved in this new movement.

The Religious and Ethical Influence of

Public Schools

SAMUEL TRAIN DUTTON. A. M.

Professor, Teachers' College, Columbia University, New York

It is evident to all that as a people we are definitely committed to the policy of forbidding sectarian religious instruction in the public schools. It is generally believed that the separation of church and state has worked to the advantage of all our institutions. At the present time the several states of the union make no appropriation for sectarian schools. At least forty states of the union have constitutional provisions prohibiting such appropriations or else prohibiting the diversion of public funds for sectarian purposes. Many attempts have been made here and there to circumvent this policy, and in some instances it has looked as though some division of the public money might possibly be accomplished; but such has not been the case, and there has been a growing sentiment in favor of keeping things as they are and letting the church and the family teach sectarian religion, while the public schools devote themselves to those forms of truth which are universal, and those principles of morality and religion about which there can be no controversy.

It cannot be said that the clergy are by any means unanimous in the support of this American policy. The Catholic church, which supports a large number of parochial schools and which feels their financial burden, has argued and labored for a division of the public money, on the plea that the public schools are sectarian and godless, and that the church should have the opportunity of impressing upon the young its own religious tenets. Not only this, but the Protestant clergy also are widely divided in their views concerning the value of the public schools as a religious and ethical force. Some who by reason of their acquaintance with teachers and their work, and their sympathetic appreciation of what the schools are doing from day to day, are quite ready to stand by the present arrangement, are doing all in their power to

supplement the work of the schools through making the home life and the church life as effective as possible for Christian living. Others, either through ignorance of the regimen of the schools or because of strict sectarian opinions as to the kind of teaching and example most important for the young, are urgent in demanding some arrangement whereby religion shall be more definitely taught in the schools.

Within the past few days there has been in New York City a manifestation of this kind of zeal for religious instruction whch may seem a sufficient excuse for this article. At a meeting of clergymen and others held in one of the churches, the proposition was made and warmly endorsed that the children in the public schools should be released on Wednesday afternoon and should assemble in the several churches for religious teaching. When the question arose as to how the attendance of the children was to be insured, it was suggested that the truant officer should enforce their attendance the same as at the schools. This suggestion also seemed to meet with favor. It is very difficult for one who has spent his life in school work, and who believes that the schools are doing vastly more for the establishment of Christian character than all other agencies combined, to speak with composure of such a proposition as that. In these modern times what is called "compulsory education" consideres more the attitude of employers of children and parents than it does the readiness of children to attend school. More and more the schools are made so attractive, and the personal hold of the teachers is so strong, that were it not for the greed of the employers of labor and the poverty of many homes, few children would need the attention of the truant officer. To think of compelling them to attend church and invoking the aid of the police for this purpose, is offensive to our conception of what religion is and how the church should stand toward the young. I cannot believe that He who said, "Suffer little children to come unto me," would approve of this method of enforcing religious instruction. It is unnecessary to enlarge upon this matter, for I cannot believe that the school authorities would consent to such an arrangement, neither do I believe that the best, sober judgment of Christian people would endorse it.

Let us assume that the culture of children and youth in morals and religion is of the greatest importance, and that it is some