rcise of it have been provided, and
recommendations for that purpose have been given, but no compulsory
authority assumed, or right of compulsion acknowledged; and the
religious exercises in each school have been left to the decision of the
authorities of such school, and the religious instruction of each child
has always been under the absolute authority of the parents or guardian
of each child.... Now many a parent may not exercise the right of using
the Bible as a text-book of religious instruction for his child in
school, but would even such parent (much less every Protestant parent)
be willing to be deprived of that right?

To the objection that the Bible is "often read in a formal and
perfunctory manner without any real benefit being derived from it by the
pupils," Dr. Ryerson replied: Is not the Bible often read in the family,
and even in the Church, "in a formal and perfunctory manner," without
any benefit to either reader or hearers: but should we, therefore, take
away even "the abstract right of reading the Bible" in the family and in
the Church?

To the objection urged against the reading of the Bible in the schools
because "a majority of the teachers are utterly unfit to give religious
instruction," Dr. Ryerson replied: The reading of the Bible and giving
religious instruction from it are two very different things. The
question is not the competency of teachers to give religious
instruction, but the right of a Protestant to the reading of the Bible
by his child in the school as a text-book of religious instruction. That
right I hold to be sacred and divine.

To a rejoinder that "the cry for the Bible in the schools is a sham,"
Dr. Ryerson thus replies: Apart from religious instruction, apart from
even the reading of the Bible in the schools, the right of having it
there--its very presence there--is not "a sham," but a sign, a symbol of
potent significance. The sign of the Cross ... is not a "sham," but a
symbol precious to the hearts of hundreds of thousands of our brethren;
the coat of arms which stands at the head of all royal patents, nor the
sparkling crown which encircles the brow of royalty, is not "a sham,"
but a symbol which speaks more than words to every British heart; the
standard that waves at the head of the regiment, nor the flag that
floats at the ship's masthead is not "a sham," but a symbol that nerves
the soldier and the sailor to duty and to victory. So the Bible is not
"a sham," but a