the conscience of some particular sect, and that the smallest and most pertinacious, must be the ruling law.

It cannot be made to appear just, that one man's tenderness or scrupulosity of conscience should be turned into the means, or put forward as the reason, for trampling on all the positive rights of another's conscience. One man's preference, in a benefit to which he is entitled, is not to be sacrificed to another man's aversion; much less is the privilege of a whole people in a right and benefit so dear as the freedom of the Word of God, for the education of their children, to be sacrificed, because a particular sect set forth the rule of their Church against it, and threaten to withdraw their children from the schools, if the Word of God be retained in them. Their children need not be obliged to use the Word of God, but may be made an exception; nothing is easier than this. But it is a piece of intolerance and oppression in the extreme, to require that because they dislike and reject it, therefore, we shall not be permitted to use it and enjoy its light. The thing is so mon

strously absurd, that it only needs to be contemplated as it is, stripped of all political distortion and apology, to be seen, known, and felt in its deformity.

We are by no means without examples of just and wise legislation in such a case. Our government has had to deal with tender consciences on more than one occasion; but it has not, as is demanded in the schools, set the example of intolerance towards all others. In the case of the oath, it had to determine in regard to the scruples of the Quakers, who were conscientiously opposed to taking it. If the course had been pursued which is required in and for the schools, at the dictation of the scruples of the Romanists against the Word of God, the formality of the oath would have been expunged from existence; its practice would have been forbidden. But instead of setting up the conscience of the Quakers as the rule for all, they continued the rule, and made them the exception. "There are known denominations of men," says Judge Story, who are conscientiously scrupulous of taking oaths, among which is that pure and distin

guished sect of Christians, commonly called Friends, or Quakers, and therefore, to prevent any unjustifiable exclusion from office, the Constitution has permitted a solemn affirmation to be made, instead of an oath, and as its equivalent." This was wise and just. But suppose, that because the Quakers objected to the oath on the score of conscience, the Constitution had, at their demand, not only blotted it out, but inserted an article or provision to prevent its ever being taken on any occasion, by any person. That would have been very similar to what is now demanded in the proposed exclusion of the Bible from the schools, because a particular denomination are opposed to having it taught or recognized.

SUPREME

Authority and Right of the Bible.

TRUTH MORE RIGHTFUL THAN ERROR.

BUT we come now to the decisive point, that the Bible is of ultimate and universal authority over all consciences and sects, majorities or minorities. On this ground, and thus only, can we clear away the sophistry that has been accumulated as a chevaux-de-frise of prejudice and confusion around the question of a public education, free from "religious bias." The Bible is of no sect, and belongs to none, and may not be ostracised or excommunicated by any, nor rightfully complained of in any presence, nor under any circumstances, as an oppression upon any conscience. The right to spread it, and to teach it, is from God himself to all mankind, and not from man, whether

in the social or the savage state, in governments, or sects, or political parties. It is the exclusive property of no church, nor denomination, nor ecclesiastical, nor civil authority.

The argument to which we have referred, against the use of the Bible in the free public schools, on the ground of conscience, confounds the claims of truth and error, and assumes, as a premise, that those who receive the Word of God have no more right to spread that, than those who receive the word of devils have authority to spread that. But in regard to the Bible, as a revelation from heaven, for the guidance and good of all mankind, the duty of making it known is paramount to every other duty; no obligation of conscience towards our fellow-men is clearer than this, nor can any supersede it.

The case stands thus:-You either know this book to be the Word of God, or you do not; if not, then you are engaged in a solemn farce in teaching it anywhere as God's Word, But if you do know it to be God's Word, then you have no right to put a book of fables on