Papal State should there be one, the Douai version; in our States, as they are, and as we trust they will forever be, free from the domination of any church,—that noble version of the Bible should be used in recognizing God in the school which was contemporary with "The Mayflower," and was used by the fathers of the nation.

GOD IN THE NATION; THEREFORE IN

PUBLIC EDUCATION.

As "flying buttresses" to the argument on "The Recognition of God by the Bible in Public Education," for strengthening and symmetrically extending the propositions there built up, these additional essays appear.

The syllogism is this:

God and Righteousness are essential in the State;

The Public School is the only Preparation controlled by the State for securing good Citizenship and Statesmanship:

Therefore God and Righteousness should have place in the Public School.

The second premise needs little remark: its truth will be generally acknowledged. Mr. Beecher, indeed, says, "In our day of general intelligence, we divide the functions of society, letting the Church teach dogma, letting the family teach personal religion, and letting the common school perform the task of teaching intelligence." Now, sufficient righteousness to make a good citizen may perhaps, in general, be taught by the family; but, in case that the State is not satisfied with such righteousness as the family teaches,—such as the Jesuit taught Charles IX. in preparation for St. Bartholomew; such as the Mormon, the Spartan, the Free Lover, the gentleman of light fingers, may please to teach his family,-what then? Has the State no protection to itself against the teaching of cellars, and of the cells of Jesuits? Evident it is, that, however the State may "farm out" to any

66

party the instruction in righteousness which is necessary to her well-being, she is responsible for the result, — her character as a State. Mr. Beecher, we suppose, would not deny this. His words, we " and "letting,” imply that it is a concession to allow the school to teach only "intelligence." The wisdom of "farming out" her necessary instruction in God and morality, in these days of Jesuitism and Mormonism, and home luxury bought by public corruption, is questionable. At all events, the State has a right- nay, on it is laid the imperative duty to teach righteousness, as Dr. Johnson might say, "sufficient to preserve from putrefaction." And the public school is the only place which she can control to educate her future citizens to this end. It was objected to this statement, in a company of gentlemen before whom this paper was read, that the State could train her citizens in justice and morality by her legislation and her court proceedings. We may gratefully allow the great influence upon a people of righteous law-making and righteous judgment, without retracting the statement made. It rests with the people, however, how far they will give attention to the study of the laws and the judgments of courts. The State, even if it should issue brief reports to the people of these two departments, could not compel their reading. In the school only, the State has a control over her citizens, so far as to dictate what they shall read, and what moral lessons they shall receive.

The first premise is worthy of more extended remark, that God and righteousness are essential in the State.

Scientifically and philosophically, and then historically, we will view this matter.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW.

Since the first paper, and, indeed, since meditating most of this, a friend brought to my notice a volume by Mr. E. Mulford, "The Nation." This book, we are told, is the product of years. of thought; and it seems, on partial examination, not unworthy to rank with the famous work of De Tocqueville. In several lines of thought gathered here and there in the book, it "marshals me the way that I was going."

The argument which I make from principles culled from this book may thus be stated as a first proposition on the subject:I. THE TRUE THEORY OF THE STATE REQUIRES GOD AND HIS

RIGHTEOUSNESS IN IT.

One is glad to set forth the views of so profound a thinker as Mr. Mulford, as coincident with his own. Space forbids little more than the mere statement of such propositions of his book as bear on the matter in hand.

66

1. "The nation is a moral personality." This he sets in opposition to the false theories of the nation; as a necessary evil," "a historical accident," "a jural society," "an economic society." This is the view of Aristotle and Hegel. Milton says, "A nation ought to be like some huge Christian personage, one mighty growth or stature of an honest man, as big and compact in virtue as in body; for, look, what the ground and causes are of single happiness to one man, the same ye shall find them to a whole State."

2. "The origin of the nation is in the Divine Will.” This he sets against the false theories, that the origin of the nation is in "the development of the family," in "mere force or might,” in " some instinct or emotion of man," in "the social compact,” in "popular sovereignty."

3. "A nation is sovereign."

4. The sovereignty of a nation involves the right of its own independent existence. "In Rome it was asserted in the words, 'Videant consules ne quid detrimenti capiat respublica," the consuls watch, that the republic receive no injury."

"Let

5. The nation has its vocation from God, and its responsibility to him, and its preservation and guidance by him. "The realization of its being through its vocation in a moral order is in righteousness: not only the law of its being, but the condition of the realization of its being, is in righteousness. In its necessary being, it moves towards this end. Thus, in anarchy and oppression and violence and crime, there is a negation of its being. Thus also, in so far as it fails of its end, it passes from history. As history is the realization of a moral order, in the unity of a divine purpose, when the nation ceases to work in its

own vocation in it, and to act as a constructive power in the harmony of its design, then it no longer has its place in it. It is this constant possibility of evil in the nation that involves the most real obligation, and is the incitement to the utmost energy and vigilance; and it is this which gives solemnity to history."

He quotes Brownson with approval concerning a recent political school: "It has rejected the divine origin and ground of government, and excluded God from the State. They have not only separated the State from the Church as an external corporation, but from God as its internal Lawgiver, and by so doing have deprived the State of her sacredness, inviolability, and hold upon the conscience."

These five propositions are foundational. Each is a principle. They deserve great study at this period of our history. Men of great ability, borne on surface thought and popular notions, are drifting from fundamentals. These propositions deserve reperusal and study. If they are true, then God and his righteousness are essential in the State.

II. We pass now to another consideration which has been brought to our notice—not in this particular connection, however by an eminent and admiring spectator of our institutions, who, while rejoicing in the separation, properly speaking, of Church and State, gave it as his opinion, that A REPUBLIC, of

ALL FORMS OF NATIONALITY, SHOULD ESPECIALLY BE RELIGIOUS.

De Tocqueville is discoursing on "The causes which tend to maintain democracy in America," and, while speaking of the opinions of Americans, makes us aware that his sentiments are similar. I transcribe a long but interesting paragraph: "Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society: but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions; for, if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it." "I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions." "I have known of societies formed by the Americans to send out missionaries of the gospel into the North-western States to found schools and churches there, lest religion should be suffered