world's destiny by the working of free agencies. What psychology is to be compared to its portrayal of man's inner and outer life, just as he is in all his grandeur and misery? And what poesy approaches in simplicity and naturalness that of David and Solomon? Take up Pindar or Homer: you need a vast apparatus of erudition to be able to appreciate them; but the Psalins are appreciable by everybody. Hence, whereever the Bible is read, it stamps itself upon the national spirit, giving birth to a refined taste, cultivating the sentiment of the dignity of man, and awakening all the powers of the soul to vigorous and harmonious action. Let the Bible, therefore, be put into the hands of all. It must go into the school; no school from which it is banished can accomplish its mission. We not only desire that it shall be read as a part of worship; we desire that it be made the very centre of education,-that from which all proceeds and to which all is referred-the soul of mental training, the daily bread.

Our conviction on this point is clear: the school without the Bible is the school without a soul; or more truly, it is the school materialized and deprived of the most effectual instrument of accomplishing its proper purpose. But a new question here rises before us. Should the Bible be placed, by law, in all our schools, and especially in those supported by the State, or should there be guaranteed on this subject an absolute liberty? On this point good and Christian men may differ. I must, therefore, examine this grave, social problem with all possible candor, if I would not incur the charge of slighting the most delicate phase of my subject.

This problem is new and peculiar, like the times in which we live. A century ago it would not have been thought of; for, the whole social fabric of ancient Europe was based on an intimate alliance of things spiritual and temporal. It was the period of State religions! Doubtless, many breaches had already been made in that social edifice in which the throne was supported by the altar. The breath of free thought had penetrated those fissures; it was as impossible to check it as to beat back the wind; unbelief had sapped more than one social custom; still the external ancient form of things continued nevertheless. The civil power was the guardian and soldier of

the official faith. In such a state of things, the school belonged exclusively to the spiritual power; it was given over to it as its reserved field to be cultivated as it saw fit. Public instruction from the lowest to the highest grade was the prerogative of the clergy. Laymen taught only by their sufferance; each church imposed its whole Credo, and taught its catechism by authority. But this system was often a poor success. Voltaire and the Encyclopedists graduated from the colleges of the Jesuits! The eighteenth century, though an emancipated son, was, still, a son of the Church; it had drunk her milk, and set out in life under her leading-strings.

But in our day all is changed. Save in Russia, Spain, and the Papal States, state religions have little hold in the world. Austria is in process of throwing off hers. No one now claims that government schools should be connected with the church, and for the simple reason, that there is no longer one sole church, all forms of belief having equal rights of existence in the same country. It would be a flagrant injustice to give preponderance to one church at the expense of others, especially in a sphere which has to do with immature minds which can be biassed at will. Such a course would violate the most sacred of parental rights. We must leave to ultramontane presumption the iniquity of seizing on the young generation to stamp it, whether or no, with its fatal effigy. This system does not, like Christ, invite the children to come; it siezes upon them, declaring that its rights are absolute. Now, any Protestant church which should raise such claims, would deny its own first principle; under pretext of preserving its creed, it would sacrifice the spirit, without which the creed is but an empty husk. And more, it would be certain of defeat, for on the field of authority no church can rival the organic power of Romanism. There is no system so admirable as this, when the object is to crush out human individuality.

But it is said, the question is not as to subjecting the schools to an ecclesiastical régime, but simply as to causing to be taught in them those primary principles which form the basis of all religion. In this view of the matter, has not the State the right of making of the Bible the first reading book in its institutions? To answer this, we must go back to first princi

ples. We insist on the most absolute liberty in matters of instruction. We reject with our whole soul all educational monopoly. Nothing could be more tyrannical than the pretension of the State to be the sole instructor. We claim, therefore, the most perfect liberty of founding and multiplying schools alongside of the government schools. Every church, every phase of belief, should be allowed to have and teach its school on the sole condition that it does not violate public morality and order. These conditions once conceded, the question before us loses much of its importance. Should the State not impose the reading of the Bible in the public schools, then those dissatisfied with this system will establish and resort to private schools. And, in fact, it will always have to come to this, where a seriously-religious education is desired. The reading of Scripture passages, or the giving of moral lectures by worldly teachers is of little avail. We are, therefore, forced to look to select and denominational institutions, to complement the inherent defects of public schools. Nor need it be said that this will incur too much expense. No expense is great when conscience is at stake. And earnest convictions ask only for perfect liberty; they will readily and gladly find the means and found the schools.

We are now able to face our question without the least hesitation. Ought the State officially to decree that the Bible shall be the basis of the instruction given in its schools? We do not think so. And to justify ourselves, we need only resort to the great principles which, in our opinion, should regulate the relations of the spiritual power. I reject most positively the notion of the Christian state, by which I mean a State that assumes to interfere directly in religious matters to support one doctrine, and impose more or less its practice. The notion of the so-called Christian State is, in my opinion, the pagan notion of the State, for it includes one of the worst features of paganism, the absorption of the individual conscience in that of the public.

The State shows its respect for Christianity by fixing the boundaries of the domain of law at the precise line where the domain of conscience begins. It should guarantee liberty to religion, but further than this it should not go. The State, in

the Christian sense of the word, is the State which abstains from meddling with what does not belong to it, which leaves to God that which is God's; and whatever appertains, nearly or remotely, to belief and worship, is the reserved domain of God. Such are the principles which must settle the great question before us, a question which the circumstances of the age invest with unprecedented importance. The State is everywhere in the presence of different religious forms. No one has precedence of another in point of right or law, the quality of citizen being absolutely independent of the religious profession. And, alas! we must also take account of those who reject all religion. The State, as State, should not favor any one of these opinions or beliefs. Now, this is precisely what it would do, should it impose in its schools any form of religious instruction. It is in vain to say that the Bible is the common basis of all Christianity; this would be to forget that there is, between the great branches of the Church, a radical difference of method as to the use of the sacred book. Catholocism does not concede the reading of the Bible, save under its own guidance. And Jews could not desire their children to hear the Gospel. And there are many phases of unbelief, which, however, groundless, would yet have a right, from a political standpoint, to object to the reading of the Bible in the government schools. This unbelief, this prejudice, cannot be ignored. The State has not even the right to criticise them, much less to violate them; for this would be to trample under foot the rights of many families. Speak not of the necessity of saving the soul of the child, for this would open free course to inquisitorial tyranny. From this standpoint the canton of Appenzell would be right in compelling Baptists to suffer their infants to be baptised; and Rome would be right in kidnaping Jewish children, to save them from being led by their parents to hell. The moment you infringe on the rights of the family, you open the gate to all iniquities. In presuming to save souls, aside from the practice of simple justice, we apply to religion the iniquitous system of the public safety. The interests of the soul are so paramount, that the moment we sacrifice to them a single right, there is no possibility of stopping. The very first step is in itself fatal.

We have as yet looked at the question only in the interest of the learners; but there is another conscience concerned, that of the teacher. Certainly it were to be hoped that he would have the proper religious spirit. But the State cannot presume to judge of and exact these qualifications, under pain of meddling with the conscience. It may require of its employees knowledge and outward morality, but not religion proper, nor even any definite religious belief. Now, it would be degrading and tyrannical to ask of teachers to read a book in which they do not believe; and the effect of such hollow reading would be equally unfortunate on the pupil.

But aside from all these considerations, the State has no right to impose the Bible on the public schools; for in so doing it takes a positive position on the religious question, it chooses among the different religious theories and sects, it intervenes in the domain of conscience; that is, in our opinion, it steps entirely outside of its own sphere-for it has no competency to interfere with the relations of the soul to God. Mark well, that if you once admit to it this right when it favors your sect or party, you cannot complain when it favors another sect. (Romanism or Atheism). But to take another view, the State must be a government of some kind, absolute, limited, republican. If it may impose the Bible on the public schools, it may, likewise, as has been done in Spain, proscribe it, or it may impose upon them some Positivist catechism denying the existence of the soul and God. It will, then, do wrong, you may say. Very well! it will do wrong, in point of truth. Still it will only use the right which you have conceded to it, of deciding the religious question; and you cannot expect it t decide it otherwise than as to it shall seem good. The only and sole means of averting this danger is, absolutely to refuse to it the right to tread upon the sphere of conscience. Say to it: Thus far but no farther; levy taxes, regulate civil and public life, but cross not this sacred limit. This noli me tangere of religion is its only safeguard.

Say not that we indulge in groundless fears. The school is becoming more and more the rallying point of the different parties; for all know that he who controls the children is the master of society. Call to mind what actually took place at