It has a great deal to do; it is an attempt to trace effects to their causes. This government of ours, both in its Federal and State capacity, is growing ambitious to play the _King_. It is setting itself up as master. It is using the language of all tyrants: "_Sic volo, sic jubeo_," etc., etc. It claims, after the example of Prussia or Russia, or some other despotism, _to direct the education of the children_ of the people. It even claims them as belonging to itself. It is the great feudal 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 teacher; it will, if not checked, set itself up as preacher. It makes Sunday laws, temperance laws; it places marriage on the footing of simple contracts, facilitates divorce; it is constantly, in all these things and many others, repeating the "mot" ascribed to a King of France: "_L'état c'est moi_." In fine, it makes, as it has been aptly, but not very reverently, said, God a little man, and itself and the State a little god, not in love and charity, indeed, but in power and authority. Here is where the danger comes from, and it is against this that the people must provide. The people must see to it that the State, or those who are charged with its authority, keep 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. The State is not seldom the usurper--the rebel that should be watched. The allegiance is not to it, but from it to the people--its master. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." The people have been greatly deceived and wronged by the State on the establishment of the Public School system. The better to understand this, let us see again, in a few words, what are the _principles_ on which the establishment of public schools is based. How did men arrive at the idea that the State should be a school-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 other religious matters. According to this principle of the _State-church_, all the schools were _State-schools_. At the present day, Protestant princes and princesses are not looked upon as chief bishops, but the consequence of this objectionable system does still remain, and has gained a foothold even in this free country.