ment can find; for instance, where the Seditious Party teaches, on Religious grounds, obedience to a Supremacy, the rival of the Sovereign Power in the State; or where the Party teaches, on religious grounds, resistance to the Laws. The rival Supremacy may be claimed for a religious Body or Person residing within the nation; in which case it is more plainly of a seditious character. If, within the boundary of the State, there be claimed for a foreign potentate, or other person, a Supremacy rivalling that of the Sovereign, the offence has much of the character of Treason. But still, since the obedience claimed for the religious Supremacy will, it may be supposed, be demanded through the means of a religious organization existing in the country itself, a Religious, will not differ much from a Political Sedition; except that the opinions by which the Seditious are bound together, will exercise their influence upon men's minds in a different way in the one case and in the other. The amount of the necessity for repressing a Religious Sedition of this kind, will depend much upon the nature of the rival Supremacy which is claimed. If what is asserted by the Party be merely a Supremacy in spiritual matters, Selfpreservation will not require the State to suppress the Party; provided the State have such a control over the organization of the Party, as to confine the authority of the religious ministers to its proper spiritual province. This stipulation is necessary; for the influence of religious ministers is, in the course of human events, almost inevitably extended from spiritual to temporal concerns. And if, in consequence of the State having too little control over the religious authorities subordinate to the rival Supremacy, the spiritual Supremacy which is asserted, interfere with and overpower the temporal Sovereignty; the State must perish. We have spoken of a Sedition in general, as an Excrescence, which

diseases the body politic by drawing to it the nutriment which should support the bodily life. Retaining the same image, we may say that a Seditious Religious Party in the Social Body, is a Spiritual Excrescence; which, though not immediately visible in a material form, may destroy the health; as a vehement and ungoverned train of thoughts may affect the texture of the brain, and produce the most fatal disease.

858. If it be questioned whether the State have the Right to take measures in order to repress a dangerous Religious Party, the question may be easily answered, on the principles already laid down. The State is the only Authority by which the Rights of citizens are realized and upheld. It may make this, its support of the Rights of its subjects, dependent upon any conditions which its own preservation requires. If there be a rival Spiritual Authority, the State may very reasonably demand from a citizen a renunciation of the rival Spiritual Power's temporal Authority within the national territory. If the citizen refuse to make such a renunciation, he has no injustice done him, if he be not allowed either the Right of property in land, or any other Right. For ali these Rights exist only through that temporal Sovereignty which he refuses to acknowledge. If he will not give his Allegiance, he cannot justly complain that he does not receive Protection.

There is therefore no valid jural objection to the repression of a dangerous Religious Sedition. Whether there be, in any case, moral objections to measures of repression, arising from the harmlessness of the party; or practical difficulties arising from the extent to which the Sedition has gone; are questions to be decided by the circumstances of each particular case.

859. If the Religious Sedition take the form of teaching Resistance to the Laws simuly, without sel

ting up any definite rival authority, its repression is included in the common administration of the Law, and in the punishment of those who resist the law. But the possibility of such religious teaching, and the examples of it which have appeared, make it, if not an Obligation, at least a Duty of that State, to give to its citizens a religious teaching which may tend to prevent the prevalence of an opinion of the opposition of Religion and Law; rather than to depend entirely on the measures which may be employed to repress the Seditions arising out of such an opinion. But the consideration of the Duties of States, and of the Duty of religious Education among the rest, will come under our notice hereafter.

860. One form of Error respecting Religion has been made punishable by most States, on the ground of its being an opinion dangerous to all government namely, Atheism; the Denial of the truth of all Religion, and therefore of all religious Sanctions of Morality. We have already shown (841) that all States have claimed, and must claim, the Right of exacting from men declarations in the most solemn form in which they can be given; and the form employed has always contained a reference to the existence and providence of God. A man who denies, and teaches men to deny, the existence of God, may be considered, so far as he is successful, as setting up a Sedition which makes all continued Government impossible. But whether this Sedition is so dangerous as to require the Laws to make such opinions criminal; or whether their prevalence and danger may not better be prevented by Religious teaching, of which we have spoken, as a Duty of the State; will be better examined hereafter.

CHAPTER III.

THE MORAL CHARACTER OF THE STATE.

861. WE have spoken of the State, as having Obligations; and we have also referred to its Duties (473). The questions naturally occur; since the Actions and Thoughts of States are necessarily compounded of the Actions and Thoughts of indi vidual Persons, upon what Persons these Obligations and Duties fall, and in what manner? We may make a few remarks on this subject.

862. The Governors of the State act for the State; and upon them the Obligations of the State fall; they fall upon the Sovereign ultimately; but, in the first instance, upon the Officers and Magistrates of the State, who receive their Authority from the Sovereign, and are held by him to the discharge of their Official Duties. The Obligations of National Defence, of upholding the Laws, and of suppressing Sedition, all belong, in a general form, to the Executive Department of the Government (210). But the first of these Obligations, in its details, is devolved upon the Army and its Commanders; the second, upon the Magistrates and Judges; as is also the third; and in some measure, so far as the prevention of Religious Sedition is concerned, upon the Religious Teachers of the Nation. The State Obli gations fall upon the persons, who occupy these offices respectively, as Obligations, and therefore, as Duties. It is the Duty of the Sovereign to provide for the defence of the country; it is the Duty of his Ministers, and of the Estates of the Realm, to advise and aid him in this purpose. It is the Duty of the Commander of the Forces to use, for this purpose, with his best ability, all the means which are placed in his hands: it is the Duty of every military

Officer and Soldier, according to his condition, to ex ert zeal, skill, and courage, in this cause. And the like may be said of the other departments of the State. It is the Duty of all Persons in Judicial positions, according to their position, to join in administering the laws; and of all Magistrates and their Officers, to do their part in carrying judicial deci. sions into effect, and by other appropriate means preserving the Order of the Community. We have already said (278) that each man has the Duties of his Station; and among the most distinct of such Duties, are those which fall upon each man, as his share in the fulfilment of the Obligations of the State.

863. The State has Duties as well as Obligations (474). Thus all States have Duties of Truthfulness and Honesty they ought to observe their Treaties and pay their Debts. They have Duties of Justice and Humanity: they ought not to oppress or enslave the unoffending inhabitants of other countries. They have Duties of Self-culture: they ought to learn and to adopt true Moral and Political Doctrines. Some of these Duties will be acknow. ledged by all Moralists as Duties of States; and thus, the moral character of the State as an agent capable of Duties, cannot be denied. States may act rightly or wrongly; and hence their actions are subject to the Supreme Rule of Action, the distinc tion of right and wrong.

The Question then occurs, as we have said, Upon whom do the Duties of the State fall, and in what manner?

864. It is evident that they must fall upon the Governors and Administrators of the State, for these act for the State. They fall upon these persons as Duties. It is the Duty of the Governors of the State to be truthful, honest, just, humane, rational, on the part of the State. But it must be observed, that this