RELIGION IN THE SCHOOL. 297
ral
he
ity
‘ee
n-
VY,
-2,
d-
of
ads
ay
re
r-
n
Ke)
dl=
ves
Je
n
1S
1S
il
nN
ag
re
10
P=
1 L=-
Gg
ad
oy
200
of
g.
n
ule
and civil relations, and this involves moral character. Hence character is
the end of school training ; religion only a means to this end.
This distinction between religion as an end and as a means of the school
is not only important but fundamental. If religion be not the end of the
school, it follows that the teaching of religion for religious ends is not its
function. The school may use religion to enforce and strengthen moral
obligation, just as the state uses it in administering the civil oath. The
state does not recognize religion as its end, but it uses religion to secure
:he ends of civilization and freedom. ¢¢ With the individual,” says Dr.
Seelye, ““ religion is primary as an end ; with the state it is only secondary
and a means.” It follows that neither the state nor the school is an
agency for the advancement of religion as an end, but each may use reli-
sion for its own ends. In other words, while religion is not the end or
function of the school, it may use those religious means which are neces-
sary fo secure effective moral training—the highest end and central duty
of the school. To avoid this conclusion, those who take the extreme view
that all religion must be excluded from the public school, consistently deny
shat moral training is its end or function ; but no objection can be urged
against moral training in school that does not hold against the school vself.
On the contrary, the assumption that religion is the end of the school
involves the making of religion its chief concern and function—the
Franckean claim of the seventeenth century. Moreover, the duty to teach
religion as an end nvolves the teaching of all religious truth essential to
the welfare of the child’s soul. No one who has any true conception of
the importance of religion to the individual can be satisfied with anything
less. Tt is obvious that such a test as this would condemn nearly all
schools, even those under the immediate direction and supervision of the
church. The religious instruction and exercises in these schools fall far
short if religion be the end and duty of the school. There is an increas-
ing recognition of the fact that the family, the church, the Sunday-school,
and other voluntary agencies must be depended upon to give our youth a
saving knowledge of religion.
Whatever may be true of schools under private management, the public
school cannot make religion its end, or religious instruction and worship
‘ts necessary function. It must leave to other agencies that religious
instruction and training that looks to the salvation of the soul.
We are now brought face to face with the practical question, What reli-
gious means are needed to make moral training vn the school efficient. and
how may they be used?
It has already been shown that the ethical motives need to be quickened
and supported by religious influence, and this fact suggests that in some
practical way the school must use those religious sanctions and motives
which quicken the conscience, strengthen moral obligation, and influence
the will. But these religious sanctions and motives flow from certain