does not preclude others from teaching what is distinctively religious; and it does not in any way imply that the latter, our whole existence being taken into the account, is not far more important than the former. The importance of things spiritual, as compared with things temporal, supplies no reason why the State should give its attention to the former in the public school system that would not be equally pertinent to show that it should give the same attention in the Church system. This, indeed, is one of the old arguments for Church and State which the people of this country profess to have outgrown. It may be (in the sequel of this discussion we expect to show the fact) that things spiritual lie outside of State jurisdiction altogether; and that civil government is not an agency fitted to take charge of them, and cannot do so without more evil than benefit. And if this be a fact, then the importance of these things does not bring them within the purview of the State at all.

We are again told that a school system confined to secular instruction is "godless" and “irreligious." There is a sense in which this is true, and in that sense there is nothing in the objection. A merchant makes out a bill for the sale of goods to his customer, with not a word about religion in it. That is a "godless" bill, in the negative sense. A young man attends a medical school,. and there hears nothing about theology. That is a "godless" school, in the same sense.

So

one listens to a lecture on astronomy, in which no reference is made to God. That is a "godless" lecture. A boy works eight hours per day in a factory, in which no religious instruction is given. That is a "godless" factory. So a child goes to the public school, and while there is exclusively occupied with secular branches, and not religious studies at all. That is a "godless" school in the

same and in no other sense.

The impression, however, meant to be conveyed by the terms "godless" and "irreligious," when applied to the secular public school, is that the school is anti-religious, and must be so unless it makes religious teaching one of its functions. In this sense the statement is utterly and absolutely false, unless the religion had in view be of a kind that will not stand the test of popular enlightenment; and, if so, the sooner the world gets rid of it the better. So far from being hostile to true religion, the secular culture which the child gains in the public school, the power to read and understand the meaning of words, the discipline of the intellectual faculties, the increased grasp and activity of mind, and the moral habits there acquired, not only place no impediment in the way of religious teaching, but actually prepare the mind for it, by supplying important conditions, if intelligence is favorable to religion. The drill of the day-school is a very good drill for that of the Church and the Sabbathschool. It is by no means certain that the latter

will not be more profitably and successfully performed by not being combined and mixed up with the routine of the former. Be this as it may, the public school is no enemy to true religion, because teaching religion is not made one of its objects.

We see, then, nothing in a purely secular system of education, established and conducted by the State and modeled after the type of its own organic life, that should create the slightest alarm in any reasonable mind. Ignorance, bigotry, sectarianism, intense ecclesiasticism, and a domineering priestcraft may lift up their hands in holy horror; yet a sober common sense, serenely, if not pitifully, contemplates the spectacle. Must an American State change its essential nature to accommodate religious fanatics? Must it virtually become a theocracy, and that, too, by no higher authority than that of the people, in order not to be the enemy of God? Is religion such an article that it is put in jeopardy by the acquisition of knowledge in respect to things temporal? Does it harm religion, to teach children to read, to cipher, to reason, to practice good manners, to deport themselves well in school hours, and submit to school discipline and authority? Does this impair the power of the Church, or that of the family, or interfere with the zeal and success of those who choose to embark in the work of religious instruction according to their own methods, at their own. charges, and in conformity with their own ideas of truth?

Those who are suspicious that an educational system which simply does not teach religion, but for sufficient reasons leaves it to be taught elsewhere, is and must be hostile to religion, pay a very poor compliment to the thing they are so anxious to preserve. Those who think that the public school must be "irreligious" in the bad sense if it has not the Bible, or the Catechism, or both in it, must also think an American State to be "irreligious" in the bad sense because it has no Bible or Catechism in its fundamental organization, and, hence, makes no distinction among its citizens on any religious ground. The effectual way for them to cure the difficulty is to reform the State, and thus strike at the evil in its source, by producing a theological or theocratic State. Religious teaching, by its authority, would then be in order; and so also the destruction of individual religious liberty would be in order. The hanging of witches would be in order. The religious persecutions of the Dark Ages would be in order. Every man ought to thank God that our political system does not provide for this kind of order.

VI.

RELIGIOUS TEACHING BY THE STATE.

Religion, considered as a communicable system, consists in a body of beliefs or forms of thought

whose objective center is God. As an experimental system it consists in the emotions and affections awakened and sustained by these ideas or beliefs. As a practical system it consists in the embodiment of both elements in outward action. Thoughts first, emotions and affections next, and outward action last-such is the order of nature in respect to religion. The power of the religious teacher lies mainly, if not exclusively, in the first of these categories. He cannot awaken emotion or affection, or influence action, except by using the ideas which supply the occasion for both. The thoughts which he transfers constitute his means of religiously impressing others.

Such a teacher must, of course, have something to teach-something which he knows or thinks he knows, at any rate, believes; and this something, be it more or less, true or false, is his creed in regard to God, and the duties which men owe to him. Religious teaching, measurable by no standard, analyzable into no elements, and definable by no quantity or quality, is merely a name. Something

must be taught, or there is no teaching. This something must be in the teacher's mind; and, in order not to be a deceiver, he must himself believe it. He ought to be, at least, a decent illustration of his own creed, since otherwise he will practically contradict it. Irreligious, immoral, and profane teachers handling the things of godliness present an incongruity which human nature declines to