The Nevada journal., 1859-06-03
DIR. Scott and the Bible. The sphere
or the duties of tile Government.


man graphing with it. The Dr. is GER
tainly distinguished as the prince of lit
erary gleatie
We have never yet seen production
Of his of column length but was
copionsly made up from his wallet of lit
erary scraps, and seems not yet exhaus-
ted. For his indefatigable gleanings in
the literary harvest fields and for many
times feeding the public mind on excel
lent second hand pabulum. he deserves
much credit. But take away his
onnixm gatherxm and you make him
poor indeed" 1t has been more than
whispered. publicly too, that he is not
the most clover man in the world in the
use of his gathered treasures, that he
has now and then slipped stones into his
literary fabrics without telling who
quarried and polished them for him. If
SO it were grievous fault. However
this may be. certain it is that many times
when he ventures. to walk without his
crutcEes he does some awkward tumb
ling In other words when the DR. ventur-
ed to speak er cathedra upon many of
the leading questions and principles of
the day his performances are scarcely
saved from the ridiculous. Many in
stances we might here present in proof,
but must suffice with one. 1t is his at
tempt to define government, especially
to draw its moral character. Heai him.
Nor is the legislature competent to
determine what are the laws of God"
Again, "Our government then, as such is
incapable of performing religious act"
Elsewhere in an essay on similar
subject he has said in substance govern
is without a conscience" Now, if we
are to understand the DR.. as defining our
government as it is practically. we cor
cur. 1t is but too true our government
is incapable of a religious act from the
President. down to the policemen, with
individual exceptions. Religion is about
as much out of place now days in our
councils of state as it would have been
in Milton's celebrated council of Devils
But does he mean that such is the true
moral portraiture of civil government as
it ought to be-as a power constitute of
God? Does he teach that such is the
moral character Of our republican gov
crnmentl Without conscience. incapa-
BILE of religious act, not competent to
know what are the laws of Godl Then
it follows of course, that our government
must be composed of men wholly desti
tute of moral and rel gious character, or
of moral and religious men who may act
aspripatc citizens according to their NOR
al and christian principles but as men,
b-rs of government, as Legislators, and
Judges must ignore them utterly, and
act rs if destitute OF religion, as things
What a monstrous idea of government is
this. and what monstrous government!
A body ofmen chosen too, from among
moral, christian people, but destitute of
heart, conscience. moral responsibility
or religious principle, with nothing but
a gizSnrd called seclxs,m. And what
else can you make of the Dr's definition
of a purely seeHla, government ''incspa-
bic of religious act" incompetent to
determine what are the laws of God"
and without a consciencel Such def
nition of civil government coming from
SO exalted source ought to be hailed
as godsend by political tricks ers and
concerning OFFICIALS. i. exactly suits
them But from such government,
good God ever deliver civilized, chris
tian people. But. we sat down to pen
these lines more especially to notice the
position the DIR. claims for this secular
government in respect TO the question
of the bible in the Public Schools. 1t
has been generally known that on this
question the DR.. sided with his "fIiends
the Je,a,ts." In this essay he defines
his position in his peculiarl y &c cathedra
style. 1t is briefly this: The state is
purely secular institution, incapable
of religious act, incompetent to deter
mine what the laws of God are. The
bible being religious book, to have it
read in the schools would be teaching
religion, This the State is not competent
to do. Therefore, the bible and reli-
gious instruction shonld he left to tn.
churches--the spiritual institution. Such
is the gist of the Dr's. logic. Now ad
mitting THAT Government is the secular
monster he says it is, Why. of course.
We must admit that we could not expect
that a book of principles anything like
tho hihla mr. the nriu uc;.,lec of tho hill, |