I have shown that the whole system is infidel in principle. The State says we want no religion taught in the Public Schools, because, as we cannot teach you religion without inculcating some form or other professed by some sect or other, and as we do not wish to give offence, we will teach you none. Let the child believe anything or nothing, so as it is not some form of "sectarianism." I worship in the "Pantheon;" all are alike to me, of course. In all this the State is perfectly consistent, and cannot do otherwise. It has undertaken a part _it is not competent to perform_. The State, as State, professes no form of belief. Its gods, its worships, its altars, its victims, its rewards, its punishments, its heaven, its hell--are here. It teaches no religion, because it don't profess any. It was not born, it will not die, it has no soul, it was not created, it will not be judged in the world to come, like men. But let me not be misunderstood as concluding that states, nations, or kingdoms are not moral persons, and are not responsible for their acts and conduct to Almighty God. They have no right to do wrong more than an individual. "States" have their lives, their mission, their destiny; they have their sphere here below. They represent the temporal, or the things which belong to Cæsar. The State, then, is a moral person, and _a fortiori_, a religious person, _for there can be no morality without religion_. But though religion, in a general sense, be recognized by the State, it has no authority to control or direct it. It must respect the conscience of an individual. This is his birthright, and cannot be voted away, whether to support Public Schools or Public Churches. If there be amongst us any number, great or small, who deny the common faith, it is the duty of the State to tolerate them. A greater power--God--does this. But the State itself cannot profess or _play infidel_, or, under pretence of avoiding sectarian partiality, strike at the root of all Christianity. I admit the State is of the "temporal order," and cannot discriminate between the various modes of belief; but not for that can it place itself _outside_ of them. It is _distinguishable_, but not _separable_, from the spiritual order. It is simply a means to a greater end. It is a mischievous error to say that the State has nothing to do with religion, and may act outside of its obligations. If by this it is meant that the State cannot establish or maintain any special form of religion, or interfere with its profession, or even denial by others, I admit the proposition; but if, on the other hand, it is meant that it regards Christianity and infidelity, God or no God, truth and error, either as equal or unimportant, then I utterly deny and condemn it. To bear with and tolerate error is its duty; to foster or provide for its support or propagation, or place it on the same footing with revealed truth, is another and very different thing.