If then Christianity pervades the mass of a nation, the political system, the Go vernment, cannot oppose Christianity, and it need not be identified with it. Christianity, though one thing as con trasted with Mohammedanism or other religions, is not one in itself. There are numerous sects : all profess Christianity, but all differ among themselves in some matters of faith and ceremony. If all are allowed to differ, and all are allowed to profess Christianity as they choose, it is an idle thing to speak of a Christian State, if we understand thereby that the state is to be considered both a Political and a Religious body. It involves a contradiction, for the state can not be Christian in any given form, without being opposed to those who are Christians in a different form. It follows that in a state where all forms of Christianity are allowed, the state is not Christian, and it gives, or ought to give, no more encou ragement to one form of Christianity than to another. It allows to all the free exer cise of their religion, it subjects all alike to the same rules and restraints, it gives its aid and encouragement to all 'on equal terms. How far it shall give its aid, and in what form, is a matter that it is not necessary to determine here. It is enough to show that in a state which allows all forms of Christianity, the state as such is not Christian, and that when the principle of the free profession of any form of Christianity is once ac knowledged, from that time the state has abandoned the character of being Chris tian as a state. The practical conse quences of this must be that whatever remains there may be in an old stag of this identity of a Church and a state, or, as it is sometimes expressed, union of church and state, the course of events, if it proceeds onwards in the same direc tion, must in time efface every trace of this union.
If a state, besides allowing the prof.-s sion of Christianity in any form, shall likewise allow the open profession of any other faith, that is not Christian, it is still more absurd to speak of the state, as such, being Christian. It is, as a state, as much non-Christian as Christian ; and it must, to be consistent, give its protection to those who are not Chris tians as much as to those who are Chris tians, and as a state it must make no distinction between those who are not Christians and those who are.
If the number of those who profess some faith which is not Christian should increase and approach to the number .-f those who are Christian, such a Stat.
would be threatened with anarchy or a revolution. But the amount of risk of this kind is not great ; for as the world stands at present, there seems little dan ger of a Christian country becoming Mo hammedanized, and not much prospect of a Mohammedan•country becoming Chris tianized.
The practical conclusion is, that in a State where perfect religious freedom, as it is termed, exists, the State treats all religious associations or communities alike: it shows no favour, extends no aid, and eves no countenance to one more than to another. This is the true conclusion that is deduced where a State which had once one religion, and only one, and allowed no other, has so changed this its fundamental polity as to allow all religions to be professed openly, freely, without penalty, persecution, or restraint.
In all that we have said on Education as a subject of legislation, it is assumed either that the state can enforce, if ne cessary, that which it enacts ; or that the enactments of the state will be only the expression of the public will; or that they will be founded on reasons so clear and convincing as to receive, when pro mulgated, the assent and support of a majority large enough to secure their being carried into effect. If some one of these conditions cannot be fulfilled, the legislation is premature, and will pro bably be injunous.
The extent of that department of Edu cation with which the legislature should not interfere can only be fixed with pre cision by ascertaining the extent of its pro per, that is, its useful interference. We
may state, however, in general terms, that the early and domestic Education of the young ofboth sexes is in nearly all, perhaps all, modern political systems, placed be yond the reach of direct legislative control by the constitution of modern society. But inasmuch as oue of the great functions of government is the instruction, direction, and superintendence of the teaching body, even the domestic Education is not be yond its influence, but will be subjected to it in precisely the same degree as the state shall succeed in forming a body of good teachers. For the importance and value of Education (in some sense or other : it matters not here in what sense) are universally admitted. The objects of Education, it is true, are often misunder stood by parents and those who have the charge of youth, and the means are as often ill-calculated for the end proposed But this is only a consequence of igno ranee, not an indication that Education is undervalued. When better objects and better means are proposed, whether by individual example or by associations of individuals called societies, or by the state, such objects and means will be readily embraced by all who can com prehend them. It being assumed that the objects and means thus presented are desirable in themselves, there can be no obstacle to the reception of them, so far as the state allows the reception to be voluntary, except the ignorance and pre judices (which are, in fact, only igto ranee under another name) of those to whom they are proposed. But till this obstacle which ignorance presents is over come, nothing can be effected in the of improvement; and it being ad mitted, that as to the department of edu cation under consideration, direct legisla tion is not the proper means, some other means must be adopted. Individuals and societies often effect their benevolent ob jects by example, and by the authority of their name and character. The state may do the same. The influence of authority and example is in all countries most effi cient when the sovereign power calls them in to its aid. Individuals may do much; societies have done more ; but Society (the whole, in its collective power) is the body from which all improvemeLts must come that are calculated to operate on the mass. From these considerations we conclude that if any state seriously and anxiously apply itself to the business of forming a body of teachers, it is impos sible to foresee how far the beneficial in fluence of such a body, well organized, may extend. It may penetrate into the house of the wealthy, where the child who is born to the possession of wealth is not thereby secured in the enjoyment of it, or against any one calamity of human life. His wealth may be by im providence; his health may be enfeebled by indolence and debauchery ; his under standing may be cramped and corrupted by vicious Education and bad example ; and he may become an object of detesta tion and contempt, though born to the command of wealth sufficient to pur chase all the luxuries that combined in genuity and industry can produce. This influence may also reach, and perhaps sooner and more effectually reach, the hovels and the garrets of the poor, where thousands of children are now brought up under such circumstances, that to be unhealthy, vicious, criminal, and un happy, are the only results which, as a general rule, can follow from the given conditions of their existence. When the unhappy wretch, who cannot be other than what he is, has at last transgressed the limits of the positive morality of society, and got within the verge of the penalties of the law, his crimes are bla zoned forth by the public prints, the re spectable part of society are shocked at the disclosures, and are only relieved from their pain when the criminal is hid in a prison, or his life is taken by the execu tioner. But the example is soon forgotten, and misery and vice fester in the very heart of society unheeded, till some new warning again startles it from its lethargy.