fellowship. Hypocrites succeed only by not being known.

If, then, the State, in its corporate capacity and in addition to the other things which it must. do, undertakes the work of religious teaching, whether in the public school or elsewhere, it must comply with the conditions of the process. One of these conditions is a creed of doctrinal beliefs adopted by the State as the basis and guide of the instruction to be given under its patronage and direction. A State without a creed, seeking to do the work which demands a creed, is an absurdity. What shall the creed be? The State is the only party that can authoritatively answer this question. It so happens that the term religion is a word of many meanings as to the ideas indicated by it. The State must, hence, give a specific import to the term, and thus define its own religion; and, in order not to be a trifler, it must fix upon that religion which it holds to be true, and upon this bestow its sanction. The State surely should not propagate heresy; and, since there are many heresies in the world, it must separate the wheat from the chaff, rejecting the latter and using only the former in its educational system. Let us have sound doctrine from the lips of the State through its legally authorized teacher.

If, for example, the theology of the Bible, taken as a whole, be that which the State adopts, then let its ideas be made a living and practical power in its

educational system. Let the work be done effectually. And, to this end, let the legal agent of the State be commanded to teach the religion of the State as found in the Bible; to catechise the children in the name and by the authority of the State; and employ all the forces of the living voice and the active mind to impress its ideas upon their hearts. There surely can be no just objection to this course, provided the work belongs to the State. Never mind the disputes among religious sects, since the Bible, being adopted by the State, is the State book on the subject of religion, and to it on this subject the infallible rule of State faith and State practice. The State, for its own purposes, has decided that this book contains the true religion, and also what version is the true translation of the original Scriptures. And now, having settled these points, it should not hesitate to wield the power of the book to the fullest extent. To limit the teacher to the mere reading of the Bible, without comment and without any explanation, is to aim at the minimum rather than the maximum of power. No such practice is adopted in teaching arithmetic or grammar; and no such practice should be adopted in teaching religion, provided it be the purpose of the State to do the work in the best manner. If the work is to be done at all, let it be well done.

And then again, the selection of proper teachers to do this work is quite as important as the creed to be taught. These teachers should be orthodox

according to the standards of the State, not only well versed in the secular branches of knowledge, but competent teachers, and at least respectable examples of the religion of the State which they are expected to teach. And, to guard against any mistake on this point, they should be thoroughly examined by a board of State theologians, not only as to their general competency and character, but also as to their religious and doctrinal views, especially as to their understanding and acceptance of the religious creed of the State, and their aptness to explain and apply this creed; and no one should be appointed to the service who upon such an examination is found deficient. No ecclesiastical body will put its seal upon a candidate for the ministry whose theology does not substantially accord with its own. And surely the State can follow no better rule in appointing its teachers of religion. If the religion of the State be Protestantism in its generic sense, or in any of its sectarian senses, then let the teachers be selected in accordance with this idea. So if the religion of the State be Roman Catholicism, then Roman Catholics, and these only, are the proper persons to be appointed.

Dissenters who form the minority are not to be heard or considered in this matter. Indeed, they ought not to exist at all; and if they will exist, the best that they can expect is mere toleration, provided they are peaceable. The State in its sovereign capacity has a will and a religion of its own,

and with both the majority coincides. The minority may be taxed to help pay expenses; but its views must bow to those of the majority, both as to the doctrines taught and as to the persons teaching them. The minority, of course, cannot expect to furnish the teachers, any more than a defeated political party can expect offices. Dissenters are not orthodox; and this is a good reason why they should not be trusted with the theology of the State, in the pulpit, in the public school, or anywhere else.

There is not the slightest objection to these procedures on the part of the State, provided always that the work assumed to be undertaken by it, comes within its province. To treat the idea of religious teaching in its school system as one of great importance; to magnify it in sermons, essays, editorials, and speeches; then in practice to shrink from its vigorous application, and shear it down to the smallest significance for the sake of dodging the jealousies of religious sects; thus to make but little of the idea except in public discussions about it this is not at all our notion of teaching religion. by State authority. If we are to have the thing, then let us have it, with the right sort of doctrines, with the right sort of teachers, with no heretics among them, and in a manner and to a degree worthy of the State and worthy of the thing itself. Let the State put honor upon the office whose duties it assumes and professes to perform. Ecclesiastical bodies, from the local church up to the

highest judicatory, are wont to be careful and circumspect as to doctrines and teachers; and for this they are to be commended. Should not the State, having a theological doctrine for its educational system, be equally careful and circumspect? Indifferentism poorly becomes a State that has a theological creed to administer and propagate; and as a matter of history, it has seldom been chargeable with this kind of delinquency.

These statements, the reader may be assured, are not made for mere sarcasm. We write precisely as we think. Concede the principle that religion, either as an end or a means, falls properly within the administrative agency of the State, and the inference is irresistible that the State must have a religion to administer; that it must determine what that religion shall be; and that it must and should appoint suitable persons to do the executive part of the work. We have no difficulty with the natural and necessary modes of making the principle effective-none whatever-since they result from it by inevitable sequence. Nor have we any scruples about the so-called rights of dissentient minorities, since there are no such rights, provided the principle be a sound one. They have no right to be talking about the rights of conscience against the just exercise of the powers of the State. They are by the very terms of the case mere grumblers. The administration of religion being one of the functions of the State, then the