ii. J THE SCHOOL BOARDS. 49 



would be properly termed religion ; but it would not 

 be the whole of religion. The affection for the ethical 

 ideal defined by moral science would claim equal if not 

 superior rights. For suppose theology established the 

 existence of an evil deity and some theologies, even 

 Christian ones, have come very near this, is the religious 

 affection to be transferred from the ethical ideal to 

 any such omnipotent demon ? I trow not. Better a 

 thousand times that the human race should perish under 

 his thunderbolts than it should say, " Evil, be thou 

 my good." 



There is nothing new, that I know of, in this state- 

 ment of the relations of religion with the science of 

 morality on the one hand and that of theology on the 

 other. But I believe it to be altogether true, and very 

 needful, at this time, to be clearly and emphatically 

 recognized as such, by those who have to deal with the 

 education question. 



We are divided into two parties the advocates of 

 so-called "religious" teaching on the one hand, and 

 those of so-called " secular " teaching on the other. And 

 both parties seem to me to be not only hopelessly wrong, 

 but in such a position that if either succeeded completely, 

 it would discover, before many years were over, that it 

 had made a great mistake and done serious evil to the 

 cause of education. 



For, leaving aside the more far-seeing minority on 

 each side, what the "religious" party is crying for is 

 mere theology, under the name- of religion ; while the 

 "secularists" have unwisely and wrongfully admitted 

 the assumption of their opponents, and demand the 

 abolition of all " religious " teaching, when they only 

 want to be free of theology Burning your ship to get 

 rid of the cockroaches ! 



But my belief is, that no human being, and no society 



H E 



