loo THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



sought to be enforced by an appeal to selfish interests by the promise 

 of reward or the threat of punishment in a life of which we know not. 



Nor is the value of the moral teaching of the churches to be ignored 

 merely because they insist that it is the duty of all to accept and adopt 

 their theological teachings their conception of the infinite and un- 

 known, with its attendant dogmas and " cramping bounds of creed." 



The crude and sometimes wholly indefensible theories of right and 

 wrong which are recognized and treated as of divine authority in por- 

 tions of the Scriptures do not furnish a sufficient reason for an unquali- 

 fied condemnation of the ethical teachings of the churches. It is in 

 general only in some strained theory rarely in a practical application 

 to the duties of life that the most extreme and ultra standards of duty 

 recognized in the writings which are collectively known as the Bible 

 are inculcated, or even defended, inside the churches. Even those men 

 whose mistaken zeal and religious bias lead them to attempt a defense 

 of all the varying and inconsistent standards of duty recognized or pro- 

 mulgated by the many authors of the writings which make up our 

 Bible, do so rather in theory than in fact. In their daily life, or prac- 

 tical advice to others, they adopt neither the standard of implacable 

 and indiscriminating revenge and cruelty on the one hand, nor that of 

 absolute self-abasement and meek submission to insult and injury on 

 the other, which are alternately represented as attributes of the Divine 

 character by the respective authors of these so-called sacred writings. 



Without stopping here to discuss the objectionable featm-es of a 

 system of ethical training or education which has its nominal founda- 

 tion in the supposed fiat of a Divine Intelligence, and which in theory 

 necessarily precludes the possibility of the development of higher 

 standards, it may be conceded that such education in morals is better 

 than none. The value of such education is not wholly counterbalanced 

 by the evil of its constant appeal to the selfish interests by promises of 

 personal reward or threats of punishment, rather than to the nobler sen- 

 timents of the mind. Conceding the moral education of the churches 

 to be imperfect in theory, in the manner in which it is imparted, and 

 the means by which it is sought to be enforced, it nevertheless contains 

 elements of good to those who can-receive it. 



The believer of course finds in the ethical teachings of his church 

 a deeper and fuller moral education than they impart to others. He 

 can at least give due weight to their real merits, and they are to him 

 authoritative in a greater or less degree the degree being dependent 

 upon his faith in their divine origin. From long association of ideas 

 and the influence of early education, the attendant theological teach- 

 ings do not suggest to him that sense of incongruity and inconsistency 

 which they present to others. 



But how far is the moral education furnished by the Church suited 

 to the needs of those who are compelled to reject its theological dog- 

 mas concerning the unknown, and to regard its standards of duty as 



