SCIENCE IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. 357 



ject of instruction. The chief creeds of religion might even be taught, 

 if the objections to them were given equal prominence with the points 

 in their favor. I can not help thinking that a comparative study of 

 articles of faith would be useful. Since, however, most of the relig- 

 ious sects would prefer nothing at all to be said unless their own sys- 

 tem be inculcated as infallible, it appears that we must for the present 

 keep out of courses of study all religious teaching. It is a pity that 

 sectarian bitterness makes this necessary. If those who belong to re- 

 ligious parties would only allow consideration to those who differ from 

 them ; if they would cease to claim for themselves a monopoly of wis- 

 dom and divine favor, there would be no need of this exclusion. But 

 if they insist that their creed be taught, and no other ; if they refuse 

 equality of representation of religious ideas ; if they are determined 

 that the deficiencies of their own notions be blinked while the defects 

 of others are magnified : then, indeed, the sole course left is, to do the 

 simple justice of absolutely excluding religious instruction. 



The extreme difficulty of adopting the other course is evidenced by 

 the strenuous insistance upon the one thing in connection with religion 

 in schools which is most indefensible of all. I refer to worship. This 

 amounts to inculcation of religious doctrine by insinuation. It is the 

 Jesuitical method, very potent indeed, but highly objectionable, be- 

 cause, without giving direct teaching, it operates to subtly instill re- 

 ligious creeds. It is neither open nor fair. "Worship is something 

 which belongs either to individual choice or to consentience. Those 

 who agree in thought may unite in worship upon the basis of their 

 agreement ; otherwise it should be a personal matter. A form of 

 worship implies the truth of the creed which it expresses or upon 

 which it is based. What more dishonest and unworthy method of 

 pre-empting and prejudicing the plastic minds of the young could pos- 

 sibly be devised than that of school worship ? The solemnity of the 

 exercise is impressed, all question and criticism are foreclosed, and 

 then, under the sentiment of awe and respect for authority thus fully 

 developed, beliefs are argued into the minds of children by prayer and 

 collateral exercises. 



So long as public-school worship is upheld, and the consciences of 

 people are callous to its impropriety, it probably would be vain to expect 

 the critical method of teaching to prevail. And yet in the present state 

 of civilization it may not be a great while before it becomes feasible. 

 A recent writer has asked, " Is there any reason why we should teach 

 the life of Julius Coesar in our schools and should not teach the life 

 of Jesus Christ?"* I reply, there ought to be no reason, indeed, but 

 there is one, which springs from the unreasonableness of those who 

 urge religious teaching. That reason lies in the demand that the life 

 of Jesus Christ be taught as the life in the flesh of a divine being, 

 belief in whom is the sole salvation from eternal perdition. Granted, 

 * " Should the State teach Religion ? " J. II. Seelye, " The Forum," July, 1886. 



