the responsibility rest? On this question there are conflicting opinions; but with regard to ourselves, as a religious body, we maintain that we are bound in this matter to submit to the word of God, not to parliamentary blue books, but to the Bible. Not to government school inspectors' reports, but to the Holy Scriptures. We confess that we have not unqualified confidence in blue books, but we have unwavering confidence in the Bible. We regard this not only as the foundation of our faith, but as the rule of our lives. Our relative duties are here distinctly pointed out, and perhaps no duty is more clearly indicated than the duty of parents to teach their children, and the obligation of children to submit to their instructions. The first command in the second table of the Law is, "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” This command is first in morality, first in influence, and first with promise. In the Proverbs of Solomon there is no duty more solemnly impressed on the attention of children, than to hear and receive instructions from their parents. Here are a few selections: "My son, hear the instructions of thy father and forsake not the love of thy mother; they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head and chains about thy neck." "Keep thy father's commandment and forsake not the law of thy mother." "A wise son heareth his father's instructions, but a scorner heareth not rebuke." Upon parents rests the responsibility of children's education, and it cannot be abrogated, nor superseded, nor transferred. Parents may employ a teacher to assist them in the education of their children, but it must be understood that the teacher is only a subordinate agent, the parent is the principal. The teacher does not remove from the parent any of the responsibility of his relations. Those who wish to pursue this argument may consult "Wayland's Moral Science," chap. 3, page 303, on "the law of parents," a book which our Conference has appointed as a text-book for our young ministers in the fourth year of their probation, and which we infer contains only such sentiments as that assembly wishes to be taught and practised in the connexion.

In opposition to what has now been advanced, both philosophers and statesmen from ancient times have asserted the main right of the State to educate the young. On this sentiment the institutions of Sparta by Lycurgus were founded. Plato in his Republic teaches the same principle. Aristotle supports it. Many distinguished men in more modern times have held similar sentiments to those enumerated; some that it is the duty of the government to educate entirely; others in part. And we must not forget to mention that infidelity ranges itself on the side of State education. Now, are the opinions of these men to be preferred to the institutions of the Bible? Is the authority of man to super

sede the authority of God? As Primitive Methodists, we feel confident that we ought to stand, and that we shall stand firm for the institutions of the Bible, and the authority of God against the mere worldly wisdom of ancient or modern times.

The principal objection with many people against leaving the education of children to their parents is, the supposed unfitness of parents to select a proper teacher, and to chalk out a proper course of training. But it is certainly somewhat singular that this supposed unfitness should be restricted to this particular case. If parents are unfit to make a proper selection of a master to educate their children, would it not follow that they were equally unfit to select a doctor for them when unwell, or a lawyer to manage their affairs in a court of law when necessary ? We think they are as capable of making a selection of the one as the other. Unfortunately the principle has gained ground of late that most things are best done by government; hence it is asserted that government can make the best selection of masters for schools, and also indicate the best course of education to be pursued. Now we want to know what there is in government that requires this function, or qualifies for it. It may not be improper to inquire what saith the Scriptures in reference to the duties of civil government. If it be that divine thing which many have described, its picture and model will, it may be presumed, be enshrined there. We read of the king who was to succeed the Theocracy, that when he sat upon the throne of his kingdom he should "write him a copy of the law and read therein all the days of his life, that his heart might not be lifted up above his brethren," and that "he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of the Lord." We also read that "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil." None of these passages place a sceptre in the monarch's hand to educate the people, to sway the conscience, or subject the soul; all that this government has respect to is the overt acts of its subjects. Not the slightest intimation is given that it is responsible for the opinions of the people, and if it were we cannot see how it could perform its duty, in our own country, at the present time. The people are now the teachers of their rulers; opinion works upward from the lower to the higher classes of society; senates and statesmen perform the national will; scarcely ever does it happen that they are in advance of the public mind; from it rather they gather their information and regulate their decisions. The education of the people of a country cannot but be a very serious matter, and if a government claims to do this, we may surely be allowed to ask whence it derives its authority? In fact, the interferance of our government in this matter was begun by an Act which more than once has been denounced as unconstitutional, and decidedly unjust to a large portion of the people. Listen to the language of

F

Richard Cobden, in a speech delivered by him in the House of Commons, June 30th, 1854:-"Here was the Committee of Privy Council of its own accord, without consulting parliament, granting public money to which the voluntaries had contributed for purposes in which they could not partake, for it must be borne in mind that the voluntaries were excluded from these schools. It was impossible not to admit that this was unjust to the voluntaries, and contrary too to constitutional principles, for he really must say that it was going a little too far for the Privy Council to dispose of the public money in this manner." As to the injustice perpetrated by this Act, we maintain it condemns the whole action of government in the matter of Education. It is the bounden duty of government to be impartially just in all its dealings with the people, and if it attempts any duty that involves the smallest amount of injustice, it is perfectly clear that the thing ought not to be done. But we are very coolly told that to put an end to injustice in this case, each religious community should accept its proper share for educational purposes; that is, if the principle laid down in this paper be correct, we are all to do wrong, and then we shall be right. But we apprehend that when we are told that each religious community should take its proper share, it is at all events intended that we as a body should do so, whether other denominations do so or not, and thus by this join hands and strengthen those who, as Richard Cobben has shown, have been and are still acting unconstitutionally and unjustly. We hope our people will have more regard for the constitution of our country and the principles of eternal justice than act in such a manner.

But there are the religious bearings of the question which are undoubtedly of primary importance. It is said by those who are in favour of State aid for education, that the subject of religion ought not to be introduced into this controversy about education, as the two things are widely dissimilar, and to confound them in argument, as many appear to do, is a fruitful source of mistake. Now we maintain that it is not the opponents to State aid that bring forward the subject of religion, but it is the government itself, by insisting that religion shall be taught in the schools that receive aid from the public funds. That there may be no mistake on this matter, let us see what is the recently expressed opinion of the present Prime Minister, the Earl of Derby, on this subject, to a deputation appointed at a meeting held on the day following the conclusion of the Church of England Congress, held at York, on the subject, as was stated by the deputation, of the serious injury to popular education which has resulted from the practice of the educational department of the Privy Council in making the conscience clause a condition of building grants. After a lengthened conversation between his lordship and various members of the deputation, in the course of which, it having been clearly shown

that the principle of the conscience clause would admit of secular education, his lordship "emphatically condemned any education without religion," which he said was not sanctioned by parliament. Here is the unmistakable utterance of the present prime minister on the important subject, clearly stating that any education which the government would support must be religious. Now, allowing that secular education might be a subject of social arrangement, we maintain that religion never can. See Wayland's Moral Science," page 216, on religious liberty. If it be admitted that the government have a right to teach religion (and we cannot conceive how government grants can be received without admitting it), then a State Church must be right. It may be said that the Holy Scriptures are the only text book required by government, each denomination of Christians being allowed and expected to add elementary books, embodying its own doctrinal belief. But if parliament have a right to teach any portion of religion, it has a right to teach the whole; if it have a right to teach religion in the school it has a right to teach it in the chapel; if it have a right to teach religion to children, it has a right to teach adults, and thus the whole goes in support of the State Church system, which we consider to be anti-Scriptural and utterly indefencible. But in this case we have a professedly Protestant government teaching all the conflicting religious sentiments of those who may feel disposed to take its money, and in fact teaching the sentiments of a Church which is denounced in the homilies of the government church as a "foul, filthy, old withered harlot," in fact "as the foulest and filthiest harlot that ever was seen." Will our people join hands with such a confederacy? Will they for the sake of a little filthy lucre sacrifice the independent position they have occupied and do occupy? ? Let the Connexion rise higher in holy power and selfsacrifice, and then will our children be educated without grants of money from the State purse, or compromise of principle.

To some persons the interference of government in the education of the people does not seem to involve any serious evil; but no pretentions the State can put forth can contain so distinct a principle or means of tyranny. In the hands of unscrupulous, wicked men, the certain consequences are too fearful to think of. It is grasping the whole intellect of the country. It says in impious rivalry of the Father of Spirits, "All souls are mine." Its right being so far acknowledged, it knows no definite bounds. What shall be taught depends on its behest. A just consequence of its prerogative is the sensorship of the press. All literature it must control. Every expansion of opinion it must carefully watch. It stereotypes the nation's mind. The education being under government, it must never be directed against government. These are not improbable evils, though if they be only possible, the

sagacious and prudent should resist a principle which might be so applied. What then, it may be asked, should a government do in the matter of education? We reply, as a government, nothingemphatically nothing; as to the individuals composing government, we answer, what every other man ought to do; let them be intelligent and religious themselves, and preserve a domestic discipline of education and religion; let their example, and even their council, recommend education and religion to the people; but we have an illustration which we borrow from the Bible, and this we would earnestly enforce. Would that all leaders and governors of nations might adopt and act upon the language of Joshua: “If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom you will serve; but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord."

But it is urged that other denominations are receiving government aid, and why not we? Why? Because it is wrong in principle and unjust in practice. Those denominations that receive government aid for education will also receive it for religion, and in this respect are at least consistent; and as to the Romish and Anglican Churches there has never been any difficulty in getting them to receive State aid; their language and conduct have always been crying, "Give, give;" and they are never satisfied. And we are sorry to say that the Wesleyans often display an eagerness after State patronage and support which we deeply deplore. But these Churches form no rule for our conduct; the very suggestion of adopting the Church of England, or of Rome, as a model for Primitive Methodists, should, we think, be at once repudiated. As to the Wesleyans we have been told, that we ought to lean more towards them than we have done, and that we have leaned too much towards the Baptists and Congregationalists. This is the fact, and it is easy to understand why a stronger sympathy has existed between us and the two denominations last named. When our early preachers were engaged in missioning the towns and villages of our country, and had to endure such merciless persecutions, the Baptists and Congregationalists were our friends, and often came to our rescue; hence the attachment. But now we are very coolly informed that it is quite time for us to transfer our attachment to other parties, especially so as we want government aid, and our old friends sternly refuse all such help. We have never been very desirous of leaning much on any arm of flesh; we think the best course is to ascertain what is the will of God, and then pray for grace to enable us to do his will. Still we like old tried friends, friends who stood by us in adversity, and we will not cut their acquaintance now because they still have Christian manliness sufficient to stand on their own legs without State support. But it may not be out of place to ask, in what direction our friends, to