in the long run, determined by their conviction of what is right on moral and religious grounds; and a Government which is wrong on such grounds, will be destroyed, if the subjects are free to act. And though men may, for a long time, be subjugated by a Government which they think contrary to morality and religion, this condition of things cannot be looked upon as one in which the State attains its objects. The State, the Supreme Authority, must have, on its side, the convictions and feelings which exercise the Supreme Sway. It must therefore have, on its side, the convictions and feelings which bind men into associations for moral, intellectual, and religious purposes. If this be not so, the State has objects in which it fails, and which are higher than those in which it succeeds; and a portion of its Sovereignty passes, from it, into the hands of those who wield the authority of Moral, Intellectual, and Religious Associations. It must, then, be an object of the State, so to direct the education of its subjects, that men's moral, intellectual, and religious convictions may be on its side; and that Moral, Intellectual, and Religious Associations may be duly subordinate to its Sovereignty. Besides which, the Government, if it be conducted by intelligent, moral, and religious men, will itself desire the intellectual, moral, and religious progress of the nation; and will wish to educate the people in such a manner that this progress may constantly go on.

1067. Thus the State, both by its lower and by its higher objects, is necessarily led to aim at educating, or directing the education of, its people. But it may be asked, whether the State is not competent to discharge this office for itself. For, it may be said, Education must be conducted by means of Masters which the State can appoint, of Lessons which it can prescribe, and of Rewards and Punishments which it can assign. And examples may be pointed out,

especially in the ancient world, where the State, as the State, has educated its people, and educated them in a most effective and marked manner; modifying their characters and moulding their wills into a conformity with the general purposes and will of the State. Such was the case at Sparta, under the constitution Lycurgus. The individual citizens, in virtue of the Education which they received from the State, were in the habit of controlling all the natural impulses of men, in obedience to the Laws; and were even ready to lay down their lives when the State directed them to do so. Here, then, it appears plain that the State does not need a Church, to enable it to educate its citizens; and has, in fact, powers of education as efficacious as any Religious Teachers ever had.

1068. To this we reply, that in this, and in all cases in which the State has been an effective Educator, it has united the Influence of Religion with the influence of Reward and Punishment. The Legislator has either himself been also a Religious Teacher; or he has taken to his assistance Religious Teachers, and has joined their authority with his own. There has been, in such instances, an identification or fusion of Law with Religion; of the State with the Church. The Precepts of Religion have been enforced by State Punishments; the Laws have been supported by Religious Sanctions. But this condition of things belongs to a very early stage of Society. The State, and the Religious Body, have now long been separated, and exist in distinct forms, with different powers in various hands. We can no longer, even if it were desirable, expect to see an identification of Church and State of this kind. The two seats of power are now distinct; and we must consider, not how they may again become one, but in what manner, and under what conditions, they can best combine their influence.

1069. Moreover, even if we could wield the united powers of the State and of Religion, in moulding men's minds to such a frame as we have described, this would not satisfy us; for this would not be the Education which we contemplate. Such a Discipline does indeed answer the direct purposes of the State, but it does not answer the purposes of Morality or Religion. It may make the citizen an effective instrument for the purposes of the State, but it does not make him fully a man. In order that a man's being may have fully a moral character, he must not be merely shaped by laws from without, but also by a principle of spontaneity within. He must not merely accept the national morality, but must elevate his own standard above what he begins with. He must not merely repeat the National Creed, but he must accept as Truth what he sees as Truth (563). The State may prescribe its lessons, but they are no lessons for him, except they become a part of his conviction. He is not educated by repeating words, or by forming outward habits. Education has to do

with the development of the faculties, and the culture of mental powers; with Belief and Knowledge; with Speculative Truth and Falsehood; and with these, the State, as a State, can have nothing to do; for the State has no powers; no organs for judging of Truth or Falsehood, except the men of whom it consists; considered, not as political elements, but as moral, intellectual, and religious beings. The State, therefore, as the State, cannot educate the people; and can do this, only by calling in the Church to its assistance.

This being established, we have several questions brought before us: Whether the Church can accept this office from the State: If accepted on Terms, What terms the State, what terms the Church, can agree to; and the like. These questions we shall briefly exam'ne.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE RELATIONS OF THE CHURCH TO THE STATE.

1070. MAN is a political animal. Wherever he exists, he lives under a Government, ruling by Laws, enforcing the Laws by Punishments; the Government being administered by Magistrates and Officers, subordinate to each other in various degrees. Man is also a religious creature. He everywhere believes in and looks to a Divine, as well as a human Government. He has religious hopes and fears which are the sanctions of his morality: he receives with reverence and submission the lessons of his religious Teacher; he seeks comfort, guidance, and encouragement in his earthly career from religious sympathies and ordinances; he has, here on earth, a religious Government conducted by Laws and Punishments, Rulers and Ministers, appointed according to the directions of his Religious Teachers. He is a member of a Religious Community, as well as of a Civil Community.

1071. Since man is everywhere a member of these two Communities, it becomes necessary for us to consider in what relation they stand to each other. Using the term Church in a large sense, so as to include all religious Communities, whatever their belief, we may term this the Relation of Church and State. But the term Church especially denotes the Christian Community; and when applied to other Religions, might seem to imply a closer analogy to the Christian Church than we can always find, or need assume. The Relation of the Civil and the Religious Community is a point which concerns all Communities. It is a universal question of Polity, and must at first be treated of with reference to all cases; though the Relation of the State to the Chris

tian Church is a point of more especial interest and importance to us. We shall consider the various modes in which the State may deal with the Religious Community.

1072. First, the State may treat the Religious Community with Indifference. This supposes that the State does not think it necessary to treat the Religious Community with hostility. It supposes, therefore, that the Religious Teacher does not inculcate disobedience to the Civil Laws; for if he do, the State must silence him, in virtue of its Obligation to repress Sedition (857). When this is not the case, the State may abstain altogether from recognizing the Religious Community. It may act as if ignorant of the existence of the Religion and the Body; just as it abstain from recognizing an association for the cultivation of Science or Art.

may

1073. When there is but one Religious Community within the boundaries of the State, there can be little temptation for the State to take this course : for the State has, as we have seen, very strong reasons for desiring to have the influence of Religion on its side, and in its service; and in such a case, the State will generally form, with the Religious Community, an Alliance with one or other of the kinds which we shall have to mention. But there may be great obstacles or impossibilities in the way of the State doing this. There may be several Religious Communities within the State; and it may not be possible to form an Alliance with all. The Governors of the State may have conquered the Nation without having adopted its Religion, and without being willing to adopt it, to the extent which an Alliance implies. Or in consequence of a series of historical events, several Religions, each embodied in a Religious Community, may exist in the country. Or there may be several Religions, not in consequence of external events, but of the internal working of