Page images

they conceived a really great idea, and wanted to put it into practice, the lack of concurrence from the masses carried discouragement into their hearts and defeated their purposes.

What could be done to stop this antagonism between the patriotism of learning and the patriotism of ignorance? What could be done to bring all citizens to take an active part in the service of the Republic? What could be done to make a reality of those good and liberal institutions that our forefathers had sealed with their blood?

The problem seems to have been solved in part. Colombia has undoubtedly entered into a new era. A system of public schools has been established on what seems to be a firm and solid basis; normal schools, where instruction is given according to the most approved German methods, have been opened in the capital of the country, as well as in each of those of the different states, and it is hoped that ere long we will have a large corps of able and efficient teachers. A friend writes to us:

"The government has been giving a new impulse to the cause of education, and the good results are beginning to be felt."

Another friend, an American, says: "If you would come and visit the public schools of Bogota you would hardly be able to recognize them, so much have they been improved during your absence."

We do not believe the republics of South America are predestined to be the standing and perpetual scorn of sister nations. We admit that they do not walk with gigantic steps in the road of civilization, yet we know that they are advancing, and we feel confident that the day is not very far off when peace and prosperity will reign in those Andean regions.


Λέγοντος τινος, ἀπὸ τῶν δἴοτευμάτων τῶν Βαρβάρων οὐδὲ τὸς ἥλιον ἰδεῖν ἐστιν ουκούν, ἔφη, χαρίεν, εἰ ὑπὸ σκιὰν αὐτοῖς μακεσομε θα The dawn mist rose on Oeta's peaksGlowed in the east the auroral streaks Through the cold twilight gray. Murmured the vales and forests rife With busy hum of wakening lifeAll nature hailing day.

Ah! then a deeper sound was heard
Than bounding deer or chirping bird,-
Dire murmurs muttering far ;

For barbarous Persia's countless horde
To Greece was bearing fire and sword-
Dark Xerxes marshaled war.

When swarmed the plain with myriad foes
Up from Thermoyplæ arose-

Up from its caverns dim-
Old Oeta's rocks sent back reply

And echoed to that warlike cry

The Spartan battle-hymn.

What need was there to Greece for fear,

Were not the Heraclidæ there?

Leonidas divine.

To mighty Jove the victims bleed.

And garlands, prayers and vows they lead
To great Minerva's shrine.

Then sudden, sharp, portentous, rings
The warning of ten thousand strings-
Ten thousand arrows fly.

As storm-clouds headlong on their way
Dark shadowing the light of day

Come rushing through the sky.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Stood leaning on his blade

'Tis well," he cried, "they hide the sun,
We'll fight them in the shade.'

Comrades, on life's broad battle-ground
Foes worse and fiercer far are found
Than Xerxes' vast array.

Foul troops of passions dark and fell,
The demon shadows born of hell,
Obscure the light of day.

But stand as Sparta stood that day,
'Gainst millions, at Thermopyla,
Unflinching, undismayed.

And when temptations gather round,
When gloom and fear and doubt abound,
Oh! take them on the vantage ground,
And fight them in the shade.



The College Courant, of February 15, has an able criticism of Dr. Howard Crosby's article entitled "State Pedagogy," which appears in the Independent of February 6.

However much I admire this criticism, as showing the absurdity of several of the theories and of the reasoning throughout, yet there is one of the writer's views with which I cannot agree. He admits the inevitable conclusion from the Chancellor's principle: "State

66 we

self-preservation justifies and enjoins religious instruction by the State." But, according to his views, this conclusion places him between the horns of a dilemma-the "repulsive doctrine, that the State should inculcate religion by express legislation," and "an utterly irreligious people-a monstrosity the world's history does not record." He takes hold of the former horn, for, says he, fearlessly maintain that a State religion-that is a religion recognized and supported by express legislation-is preferable to an irreligious people-a monstrosity the world's history does not record." He tries to free himself by an ingenious but very pernicious principle: The State is bound to see that the requisite (religious) instruction is given." But if possible it is not to interfere, for, says he, "religion and morality are better in the hands of individuals and communities." From this use of the word "communities" it appears that he means by it the churches. His view, then, is that the State is silently to watch if individuals and churches give the requisite instruction, and if not give it itself. But, since "religion and morality are better in" their hands, perhaps it would be better to hire individuals and churches to give the requisite instruction. Then comes the question: May the State use its full power, including the sword, to compel these individuals and churches, in return for their support, to give the requisite instruction? Where is the State going to stop? This power of the State might be very proper if it ended with individuals and families; but, when it is applied to churches, it presents the Church and the State in the most repulsive relationship possible. It is pure Erastainism. And we need

only read a little history to see what rivers of blood this doctrine has shed. Also, it has been considered that by a desperate defeat this victory was won-that, except in matters of " wrong or wicked lewdness," the church is only answerable to Jesus Christ her Head.

The only means of escape from the dilemma is to be found by getting the true view of the nature and relations to each other of the Church and the State. The writer proves beautifully that the State is an organization, or person, and not a mere agglomeration of individuals, as Dr. Crosby would have it. But the reasoning is just as valid to prove that the Church is an organization, or person, and not a mere agglomeration of communities without any relationship to each other. The truth is, the Church and the State are alike in this character: each is a moral person having its own obligations

to its Creator. It is true that in the earliest, or patriarchal age, there was no distinction made between the Church and the State. The same person was prophet, priest and prince. Thus Melchizedeck appears to have belonged to this threefold, unrestricted order. And this may be the point of distinction, in the epistle to the Hebrews, between the priestly order of Aaron and that of Melchizedech. But we find that in some measure provision was made for a distinction between the Church and the State when the Israelitish nation received fuller forms of worship and government at Sinai. In this economy the duties of the judges were different from those of the priests, which were performed only by certain consecrated men of a certain tribe. If these persons neglected their duties none else might discharge them. Hence it was necessary that the rulers and men in authority should have power to command them to fulfil their offices. But now there exists no necessity for the officers of the State to have such oversight of the Church; because any one of them who possesses the requisite qualifications and zeal, when he sees any work of the Church neglected, may perform it, after resigning his office in the State and being inducted into office in the Church. Although the apostle Paul enjoins the Christians to settle among themselves their own disputes, and not carry each other to law before the heathen judges, yet he nowhere taught that the Church and the State were one. On the contrary, he set in order in the churches which he planted the complete staff of officers—the ascensional gifts which Jesus bestowed and a separate organization or constitution. And yet he taught that the State was a divine institution, and its officers God's ministers armed with the sword. Thus we find that originally the Family gradually developed into the Nation, the Church and the State being combined in one; and that this in like manner was developed into these two institutions, distinct and separate from each other.

The fundamental function of each of these institutions is to teach. This may be assumed with regard to the Church; but not so of the State, according to the popular idea of it. It will not do merely to theorise on this subject-we must be guided by the nature of the institution, by history and by the Bible.

It was said by some of the Grecian sages that a good ruler differed in nothing from a good father. But a good father teaches his children. And we find that for several centuries all instructions

« PreviousContinue »