y it convinces itself. It seeks to give
to these laws the clearest possible form, so that every one may
understand them. It concedes validity only to that which can be proved,
and sentences the individual according to the external side of the
_deed_ (overt act) not, as the church does, on its internal side--that
of _intention_. Finally, it demands in him consciousness of his deed,
because it makes each one responsible for his own deed. It has,
therefore, the same principle with science, for the proof of necessity
and the unity of consciousness with its object constitute the essence of
science. Since the state embraces the school as one of its educational
organisms, it is from its very nature especially called upon to guide
its regulation in accordance with the manifestation of consciousness.

[Sidenote: _The Modality of the Process of Teaching._]

--The church calls this "profanation." One might say that the church,
with its mystery of Faith, always represents the absolute problem of
science, while the state, as to its form, coincides with science.
Whenever the state abandons the strictness of proof--when it begins to
measure the individual citizen by his intention and not by his deed,
and, in place of the clear insight of the comprehending consciousness,
sets up the psychological compulsion of a hollow mechanical authority,
it destroys itself.--

Sec. 135. Neither the church nor the state should attempt to control the
school in its internal management. Still less can the school constitute
itself into a state within the state; for, while it is only one of the
means which are necessary for developing citizens, the state and the
church lay claim to the whole man his whole life long. The independence
of the school can then only consist in this, that it raises within the
state an organ which works under its control, and which as school
authority endeavors within itself to befriend the needs of the school,
while externally it acts on the church and state indirectly by means of
ethical powers. The emancipation of the school can never reasonably mean
its abstract isolation, or the absorption of the ecclesiastical and
political life into the school; it can signify only the free reciprocal
action of the school with state and church. It must never be forgotten
that what makes the school a school is not the total process of
education, for this falls also within the family, the state, and the
church; but that the proper work of t