Public School Education

se two orders have the same ultimate end, though, in themselves, they are distinct. Nature is, and must be, always subordinate to grace; the natu

r, is, if possible, even more wicked and detestable. Yet this wicked, detestable, irreligious system, diabolical in its origin, and subversive of all political, social, and religious o

nt point, I attach great importance to a clear u

s the

he life of the State," "the power of the State," "the absolute authority of the State," "the paramount allegiance due to the State," etc.,

it will bring forth good fruit; if it be a false or bad one, it will spread its evil fruits over society. Be it one or the other, it is never

litical, social, and religious disorder and oppression. As diverging lines in mathematics can never approximate, but must continue to widen as they are extended, so a false departure from a political "standpoint"

" or "difference of race," or what not, might serve as the "proximate cause," but the real cause lay far back of them. I am willing to admit that political events do not always proceed on a strictly l

procure for themselves satisfactorily. People therefore unite to establish a State, in order to attain, through the State, what they cannot do by their own private exertions. The State, then, is made by the people and for the people. In our form of government it is a mere corporate agency. Its duty is to see that justice is administered, and personal rights and property protected. It holds the sword of justice not for itself,

ed in the written Constitution. The State, then, must scrupulously

the other to enlarge, the liberties of the people. To the former belong the centralized and de

ve been drawn within the circle of monarchial ideas. They are unconsciously, as it were, adopting their forms of thought, and applying their forms of expression to our government, and claiming for it the prerogatives and supremacy appertaining to the feudal institutions of Asia and Europe. Our simple democratic form of government seems to be getting ashamed of its plebeian origin, and ambitious to ape the language and pretensions

subject? You commence by disclaiming against the Public School System, and here yo

l master. It takes upon itself the old duty of providing instruction for the sons and daughters of its dependents. It takes upon itself the discharge of duties imposed on parents by Divine Law, just as if fathers and mothers had lost their natural instincts as well as sense of duty; just as if the State had all the intelligence, virtue, and forethought of the public in her keeping. It dispenses parents from a duty from which God will never dispense them. It has usurped the office of

ep within their proper place. The people can never be too vigilant or jealous of their constituted authority, never permit themselves to be the victims of misplaced confidence. Th

-master? If we consult history, we shall find that this idea rests upon most objectionable grounds. In Europe-in Protestant countries-the education of youth was held to belong to the church. But as the Protestant prince was also the chief bishop of his church, he had the care of schools, as well as the administration of

e, which was made a law, that the State should educate the children of its subjects. Accordingly the school-system was arranged, which Napoleon I. highly welcomed and retained, as he saw in it a welcome instrument of his despotism. In fact, nothing pleases State-absolutism or despot

applied to the poor, and other unprovided-for "waifs of society." But not long after, the State claimed to have a paramount interest in the children o

ry. The State should rather protect and promote the industry of its subjects, as well as other rights and liberties. Let me speak more plainly: the State, for instance, should protect trade, but it should not be itself a tradesman; the State should encourage agriculture, but it sh

oes the same thing, as far as possible, in regard to education. What an absurdity! In our free country, State education has n

spensable, and must be supplied to a considerable extent before education can be given at all. Why should the State throw all these burdens on the parents, and assume that of instruction

well might the State claim that all the children from seven to seventeen years of age should sit at the same table, provided at public expense, and be served with the same food and the same number of dishes. If the State (in order to prepare the rising generation to make citizens, which must be its reason, if any) thinks it necessary to prescribe a State education, it is equally important that their food, and even their clothing, should be of the approved State quality and pattern!!! All know that this was

a feature not always clearly represented. It is this: any provision made by the "State" for education, must refer to the poor and otherwise unprovided, and be justified on the grounds of the State standing to these classes in loco parentis; beyond this, though

on is, that it has asserted the dignity of freedom of the individual man, while the ancient, or Gentile, civilization, sunk the individual man in the composite society called the State. In that case it was but reasonable that the State should, as owner, take upon itself the burden of providing, not only for his government, but also for the education of h

heirs to a heavenly kingdom. Our children, too, are free; they belong by the order of nature to their parents, and by the order of grace to our Lord Jesus Christ. They are children of God and heirs to His heavenly kingdom. It is not on the State, but on parents, that God imposed the duty to educate their children, a duty from which no State can dispense, nor can fathers and mothers relieve themselves of this duty by the vicarious assumption of the State. They have to give a severe account of their children on the Day of Judgment, and they cannot a

g the right of education, than its incompetency for the ta

the child believe anything or nothing, so as it is not some form of "sectarianism." I worship in the "Pantheon;" all are alike to me, of course. In all this the State is perfectly consistent, and cannot do otherwise. It has undertaken a part it is not competent to perform. The State, as State, professes

or their acts and conduct to Almighty God. They have no right to do wrong more than an individual. "States" have their lives, th

h religion, in a general sense, be recognized by the State, it has no authority to control or direct it. It must respect the con

t for that can it place itself outside of them. It is distinguishable, but not separable, from the spiritual order. It is simply a means to a greater end. It is a mischievous error to say that the State has nothing to do with religion, and may act outside of its obligations. If by this it is meant that the State cannot establish or maintain any special form of religion, or interfere with its profession, or even

an Constitution grants to the infidel the right of protection in his civil and political equality, but it grants him no right to protection and support in his infidelity; for infidelity is not a religion, but the denial of all religion. The American State is Christian, and under the Christian law, and is based upon Christian principles. It is bound to protect and enforce C

ols, and they support the State. If this is not what logicians call a "vicious circle," it looks very much like it. It puts me in mind of the Brahmin's theory of the support of the earth. The Hindoo says, "The world rests on the back of an elephant-the elephant rests on the back of a turtle." But what does the turtle rest on? So it is with our "Public School Brahmins." They will tell you, with all the coolness of Hindoo hypocrisy and pretension, that the "State depends on the schools-the schools on the State or people," but they do not say what the turtle stands on. This is the dilemma that all who rest society on the State, or on an atheistical basis, get into. They would c

essional men; the adroit peculation and wilful embezzlement of the public money; those monopolizing speculations and voluntary insolvencies so ruinous to the community at large; and, above all, those shocking atrocities so common in our country of unbelief-the le

tem; it is a principle which controls and regulates the whole mind and happiness of the people." And, "

intellectual, and moral being-the body, the mind, the head, as stated in a previous chapter-that must be cultivated and "brought up." Neglect any one part of man's nature, and you at once disturb the equilibrium of the whole, and produce disorder; educate the body at the expense of the mind and soul, and you will have only animated clay; e

more of a demon than a god. It is these upholders of the present Public School system that arrest the progre

in the Reign of Terror? The nurslings of lyceums in which the chaotic

heir myrmidon partisans who have sworn to unify Italy or lay it in ruins? Men who were taught to scout the idea of a God and rail at relig

n its life and splendor and prevent its decay; let us, on the contrary, be persuaded that the only safety for a commonwealth, the only source of greatness and prosperity for a nation, as well as of tranquillity an