LIBRARY OF CpNGR^S,^, 
 
 029 91 5,0781 
 
.an 
 
 RELIGION IN PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. 
 
 BACCALAUREATE ADDRESS, 
 
 DELIVERED BEFOKE 
 
 THE GRADUATING CLASS 
 
 V 
 
 ANTIOCH COLLEGE, 
 
 YELLOW SPRINGS, OHIO, 
 
 JUNE 2 0, 1860. 
 
 y 
 
 THOMAS HILL. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY. 
 
 18 60. 
 

 CAMBRIDGE : 
 
 Allen and rarnhain, Printers. 
 

 o 
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 I HAVE long felt that the greatest need in our sys- 
 tems of education is the need of well-established 
 principles in regard to the selection of a course of 
 studies. Could we determine upon sure grounds, 
 what are the fundamentals of a liberal education, 
 and in what proportion they ought to occupy the 
 student's mind, the theory of instruction would have 
 a firm basis, and we could rapidly advance towards 
 perfection in the practice. In the hope of stimulat- 
 ing more effective laborers to work upon this prob- 
 lem, I have frequently recurred to it upon public 
 occasions, treating of various parts of it according to 
 the demands of the hour. 
 
 I propose, to-day, to take up the inquiry, To what 
 extent and in what form should Eeligion enter into 
 the scheme of public instruction ? Shall our public 
 schools be thoroughly secularized, and religious instruc- 
 tion be reserved exclusively for the Sunday school 
 and the pulpit? Or shall our schools become secta- 
 rian, and indoctrinate the pupils in the tenets of that 
 
sect to which a majority in the school district may 
 chance to belong? The questions of Bible or no 
 Bible, of King James' or the Douay version, now 
 agitating in some parts of our country the public 
 mind, are but parts of this greater question, whether 
 in our schools we are with the "positivist" to ignore 
 God, with the Atheist to deny his existence, with the 
 Pantheist to dream that we ourselves are God, or 
 with the Hebrew, to reverence and adore Him. 
 
 Eeligious questions, being by universal consent the 
 most vital of all, naturally engender most heat in 
 their discussion. In proportion as a subject appeals 
 to deeper and more vital parts of our nature, we feel 
 the more interest in opinions upon it, and cling with 
 more tenacity and earnestness to our own conclu- 
 sions. 
 
 This is evident, not only on a comparison of relig- 
 ious questions with others, but on a comparison of 
 any two branches of the great hierarchy of sciences, 
 or indeed, even upon a comparison of the different 
 classes of study in each branch; as I might readily 
 illustrate by all the great contests upon disputed 
 questions in mathematics, physics, history, politics, or 
 religion. The heat of the battle has always been 
 proportioned to the elevation of the subject in the 
 hierarchy, or to the relation which it bore to meta- 
 physical and religious questions. Those questions 
 which have referred only to space, to what is exter- 
 nal to the soul, have never elicited heat in the dis- 
 
cussion, even when they have been incapable of solu- 
 tion. The dispute has in such cases sometimes seemed 
 interminable, but it has not aroused any feeling, at 
 least not any to be compared with the intense zeal 
 of the politician, the fierceness of metaphysicians, or 
 the bigoted fury of theologians. 
 
 I am therefore aware that in approaching this 
 question, of the place which religion should hold in 
 a course of public instruction, I am approaching dan- 
 gerous ground. It may be impossible for me to con- 
 sider it without myself betraying a feeling that may 
 seem inconsistent with impartial judgment, or else 
 exciting feelings in others which will prevent some 
 from seeing my errors if I err, and others from ac- 
 knowledging the force of my conclusions if I arrive 
 at truths. 
 
 Suffer me, therefore, to leave, at first, the path in 
 which I propose finally to approach those conclu- 
 sions; and to discuss, for a few moments, the ques- 
 tion. To what extent and in what form should geom- 
 etry enter into a course of public instruction? By 
 thus going to the opposite end of the scale of sciences, 
 and discussing the question with reference to the sim- 
 plest and most elementary science, we may arrive, 
 perchance, coolly at principles which will be found 
 applicable at every point of the scale, and which 
 may guide us safely when we approach the more 
 exciting question of religious instruction. 
 
 Shall we admit geometry into the ordinary course of 
 
6 
 
 public instruction, or shall we reject it ? Of course 
 we shall admit it. But upon what grounds? I an- 
 swer, because it is a fundamental branch of the hie- 
 rarchy, and the knowledge of any thing whatever im- 
 plies some knowledge of the truths and relations of 
 space. To what extent shall we admit it ? I answer, 
 that it should be introduced to a sufficient extent to 
 prepare the student for all the studies in the public 
 course, at all dependent on geometry; but it must 
 not be pursued to an extent sufficient to crowd out 
 or exclude the studies for which it is a preparation. 
 A due harmony and proportion must be maintained 
 in the branches taught, and in deciding what this due 
 proportion is, we must take into account the length 
 and breadth of the curriculum, and the native powers 
 and peculiar circumstances of the individual whose 
 tuition is under consideration. 
 
 Then, in what form shall geometry be introduced ? 
 — as abstract science or as practical rule ? — in 
 theorems or in problems ? and if in problems, shall 
 they be solved by construction, or by calculation and 
 analysis ? I answer, that the method of nature is to 
 rise from examples to principles, and that geometry 
 should be presented first in concrete form to the 
 eye and to the imagination, and made a matter of 
 construction ; afterward the pupil should be lifted up 
 to a scientific and even to a metaphysical view of the 
 abstract relations of space. The proportions in which 
 these modes of presenting geometry should be em- 
 
ployed, will vary with the length of the curriculum, 
 or course of studies, and be adapted somewhat to in- 
 dividual circumstances, but the ruling principle will 
 always be the same, namely, to give so much and 
 such geometrical training as will prepare the pupil, 
 as well as his powers and his circumstances will ad- 
 mit, for an understanding of the full circle of sciences, 
 and thus for the fulfilment of all the duties of his 
 station in life. 
 
 The answers which I have thus given concerning 
 the science of geometry will be acknowledged, I 
 think, by all educators to be, in the main, sound ; 
 and the practice of all schools and colleges in the 
 world is in essential conformity thereto. In some in- 
 stitutions geometry may be neglected, in others over- 
 cultivated ; in some treated too abstractly, in others 
 made too much a mere matter of drawing with com- 
 pass and ruler ; but all this arises from errors of judg- 
 ment in applying the fundamental principles of edu- 
 cation to the question, and not from any doubt con- 
 cerning the principles themselves. 
 
 Turning now to the main object of my discourse, 
 I ask. Shall religion be introduced into the course 
 of pubhc instruction, or shall it be utterly excluded? 
 And the answer seems to me plain, that we must 
 admit it. Even in an intellectual point of view, 
 theology is one of the fundamental branches of the 
 hierarchy of sciences, and so completely interwoven 
 with the rest, that we do not and cannot fully com- 
 
8 
 
 prehend any one of them, until we have traced it 
 in its relations to theology. 
 
 Begin with the simplest of all branches, the mathe- 
 matics, and a moment's reflection will show how ut- 
 terly worthless they are in every other light than 
 this, that they alone give us a knowledge of the 
 exactness of God's thought, and alone are capable 
 of demonstrating to us, from the manifestation of 
 thought in the creation, the necessity of supposing 
 the existence of a Thinker. In using the mathe- 
 matics for this purpose, of discovering the harmonies 
 of creation, and for testing the infinite perfection of 
 nature's works, we have the most effective means of 
 improving the mathematics themselves. 
 
 Thus, all great improvements in the sciences of 
 space and time have arisen from some effort to solve 
 the problems suggested by the works of nature ; and 
 a large proportion of them have been made by those 
 who were stimulated to the solution of these prob- 
 lems by the faith that they thereby came into com- 
 munion with the thoughts of the Most High. 
 
 In like manner, physics are not carried to their 
 true conclusions until they lead us to speculate con- 
 cerning the origin of matter, and to trace the designs 
 and plans of the Architect of the universe; and, on 
 the other hand, these teleological and morphological 
 speculations have borne their natural fruit, in lead- 
 ing to wider and more exact views of the physical 
 sciences. In illustration of this statement, I would 
 
9 
 
 simply refer to two of the greatest of all names in 
 zoology, which is the crowning division of physical 
 sciences ; to Cuvier, who was led to his wondrous dis- 
 coveries by his steady adherence to the axiom, that 
 every organ was intelligently adapted to its func- 
 tions ; and to Agassiz, who could advance beyond his 
 master only by taking a still higher religious view, 
 and assuming that every variation in animal forms, 
 and every succession in those variations, is in fulfil- 
 ment of one comprehensive plan of the Divine 
 thought. 
 
 When we ascend into historical studies, their in- 
 completeness, when treated independently of their 
 relations to theology, is still more apparent. How 
 poor would be the narrative of the growth of the 
 arts of life, if we did not recognize the adaptation 
 of the physical world to the needs of man, and the 
 beneficence of the divine Creator in that adaptation. 
 How unsatisfactory our enjoyment of art, and how 
 defective our survey of the field of aesthetics, did we 
 not perceive here also the tokens of a divine nature 
 in man, which makes him capable of appreciating 
 the mind of God, as manifested in the forms and 
 colors and tones of the material world. The music 
 of nature is adapted to man ; and our knowledge of 
 music is not complete until we have perceived this 
 adaptation, and seen that it arises from the kindness 
 of a beneficent Creator. Thus, also, is philology in- 
 complete, unless it leads upward to theology. What 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 are the various languages of man but so many bar- 
 barous dialects, until the clear light of a religious 
 mind is thrown upon the study of words, and we are 
 taught to hear in the sounds of human speech — so 
 simple in their elements, so infinitely various in their 
 combinations — the proofs of a Divine Providence, 
 and to trace, in the development and growth of lan- 
 guages, the plan of an infinitely wise Teacher, car- 
 ried out, like his plans concerning the material world, 
 by the means of exceedingly simple but ef&cient 
 laws ? And in the sciences of political economy and 
 law, in the history of governments and of nations, 
 what order or what completeness can there be in 
 the studies of one who does not seek the footsteps 
 of God in history, — who does not recognize the pa- 
 ternal character of God, and the wisdom of his plans 
 for the development of races, as the fundamental 
 axioms of historical research ? 
 
 Nor, finally, is the study of the human mind com- 
 plete, unless it leads us to the study of theology, 
 and is guided by the light which is from above. No 
 man can possibly view the human soul aright, who 
 looks upon it either as the highest manifestation of 
 matter, or as the highest possible manifestation of 
 spirit. Then only can we understand ourselves aright, 
 when we find in our own minds feebler glimmerings 
 of that infinite wisdom which guides alike the atoms 
 and the planets, — fainter emotions of that unfathom- 
 able love which has filled the universe with its myri- 
 
11 
 
 ads of happy creatures. Then only is the study of 
 the human mind vested with its highest dignity and 
 interest, when we perceive that in studying ourselves, 
 we are studying also Him whom we can never fully 
 comprehend, but who has, both in creation and in 
 the revelation through prophets and apostles, declared 
 that we were made in his image. 
 
 Thus self-evident do I hold it to be, that theology 
 is a fundamental branch, the crown and glory of all 
 the hierarchy of sciences, and that no one branch is, 
 or can be, understood in full, until we have traced 
 its relations to theology. 
 
 If, therefore, we would have our course of public 
 instruction possess any thing like even intellectual 
 completeness, it must embrace, from the earliest 
 school to the college and university, a proper propor- 
 tion of religious teaching. 
 
 And that proportion is to be found, so far as relates 
 to the simple intellectual question, in the same man- 
 ner as we find it for geometry. It will be determined 
 partly by the length of the curriculum. Of course we 
 cannot expect, in a simple, common school, to pursue 
 theology, or any other branch, with the thoroughness 
 with which it should be pursued at a university. It 
 will also depend, partly, upon the circumstances of 
 the individual scholar. A boy who intends to pass 
 his whole life in some mechanical trade, or in a store- 
 house, should not be expected to study theology to 
 such an extent as one who gives evidence of an 
 
12 
 
 ability and a desire to become a public teacher, 
 whether in the schoolhouse or the church. But, 
 with either scholar, the due proportion of directly 
 religious instruction should be determined by this 
 general principle, that sufficient should be given to 
 lead the pupil to see at least the religious bearing 
 of his other knowledge, be that other knowledge 
 much or little, — that he may neither build too much 
 upon an insecure foundation, nor fail to raise the 
 most worthy structure which his basis and his cap- 
 ital will allow. 
 
 In like manner the questions in regard to the form 
 of religion may be answered. The statutes of that 
 State in which I passed the first years of my man- 
 hood, make it imperative on the teachers of the 
 common schools to teach good manners and morals. 
 This is teaching religion practically. In the earlier 
 years of school life this is right ; — it is the course of 
 nature, and precisely analogous to the course which 
 I would recommend in the teaching of other depart- 
 ments of learning. But as the child grows older, it 
 should learn abstract forms of words as well as prac- 
 tical rules; and in colleges, should have a certain 
 amount of direct studies in natural and revealed 
 religion, moral science, and dogmatic theology, — 
 regard of course being had to the general principles 
 before stated, with reference to the amount. 
 
 The question may, however, be pressed upon me, 
 concerning the form of religion to be taught ; whether 
 
13 
 
 it should be distinctly Christian or not, and if Chris- 
 tian, whether it should be distinctly Protestant or 
 not. If Protestant, shall it be Calvinistic, Arminian, 
 or Pelagian ? The usual answers to such questions 
 seem to me founded uj)on fallacious arguments. The 
 objections to sectarian teachings, and to intolerance 
 of other forms of faith, are valid ; but are very gen- 
 erally placed upon what I consider invalid grounds, 
 or at least upon secondary grounds, while more fun- 
 damental considerations would more effectually settle 
 the point. 
 
 It is frequently said that politics and religion should 
 be excluded from our common schools, and other insti- 
 tutions of public instruction, because they are matters 
 upon which men's opinions are divided ; that politics 
 taught in a school must necessarily offend the parti- 
 sans of opposite views, and religion taught in the 
 schools must necessarily wound the conscience of 
 those whose doctrines differ from those of the text- 
 books. Others have replied that there are common 
 opinions in these matters, which it would be well to 
 teach ; opinions in which all the world are agreed, 
 and which are therefore suitable to be the theme of 
 public instruction. 
 
 That such considerations should be only of second- 
 ary weight in deciding the great questions under dis- 
 cussion, will be at once manifest when we apply them 
 to the test at the other end of the hierarchy. There 
 are many mathematical and mechanical points, long 
 
14 
 
 in dispute among the learned, and upon some of them 
 there is not a perfect agreement even to this day. 
 The foundation of all geometry is in our idea of 
 space, and even that is a subject of irreconcilable dif- 
 ferences of opinion. The followers of the immortal 
 Kant (and even many of those who in most things 
 else break away from his paths, follow him here), 
 declare that space has no existence other than in 
 the mind of the observer, and some of them further 
 affirm that it is an idea never attained by those born 
 blind. Space, according to these philosophers (and I 
 think they comprise a majority of those who have 
 shown a decided turn for metaphysical speculation), 
 is only a way in which we view things ; it is a law of 
 thought, and the proof that it is so, lies in the fact 
 that we necessarily conceive of things as occupying 
 space. Since we cannot even mentally divest our- 
 selves of the idea of space, it must be, say these 
 men, a part of ourselves and non-existent out of our- 
 selves. 
 
 On the contrary, many geometricians of the highest 
 ability believe, as all ordinary men believe, in the 
 reality of space external to the mind. To them the 
 doctrine of "the laws of thought," the doctrine that 
 space and time are forms put upon things by the 
 mind, appears the very quixotism of philosophy. It 
 amounts to saying that we know that space does 
 not exist because we cannot help believing that it 
 does exist. 
 
15 
 
 But, while the fundamental conceptions of geome- 
 try, while the very existence of its subject-matter, 
 space, is thus in dispute, and the learned world so 
 equally divided on the point, is geometry to be ex- 
 cluded from the course of pubHc instruction, or shall 
 any believer in space hesitate in his public teaching 
 to proclaim his faith, and to utter his protest against 
 the transcendental delusions and errors which have 
 accompanied the growth of transcendental philoso- 
 phy ? Certainly no man would ask it. 
 
 Again, there are those who deny that space is the 
 subject-matter of geometry. The French school of 
 positive philosophy say that geometry is the science 
 of measuring extended bodies. Our own countryman, 
 H. C. Carey, m the introductory chapters of his splen- 
 did work on Social Science, denies to geometry the 
 name of science. Science, he says, is the knowledge 
 of external nature, and the mathematics is only a 
 peculiar language to aid in investigating nature and 
 recording results. With still grosser ideas, another 
 American writer maintains that a hue is an infinitesi- 
 mal thread, and a point an atom, thus reducing 
 geometry to the science of extended bodies consid- 
 ered as extended. 
 
 Does, therefore, any teacher think that we should 
 not carefully guard the student of geometry from 
 supposing that he is studying either material shapes 
 or mere abstract rules of measurina^ material thino-s ? 
 
 The hke conclusion, that the mere fact of the ex- 
 
16 
 
 istence of differences of opinion concerning a science, 
 does not unfit it to take its place in a course of pub- 
 lic instruction, might be drawn from all the other 
 sciences. We frequently find men, through a defi- 
 ciency of mathematical clearness, opposing the New- 
 tonian doctrine of gravity, and stating new theories of 
 mechanics ; • — ■ or putting out new ideas concerning 
 optics. Even in the Reports of the Proceedings of 
 the American Association for the Advancement of Sci- 
 ence, you will find a paper explaining the zodiacal 
 light, the whole paper being based on the astounding 
 assumption that both ends of a straight line may be 
 far below the horizon, and yet a large part of the 
 line remain above the horizon. 
 
 I might go into chemistry and find still more strik- 
 ing instances of differences of opinion. I need not 
 allude to bygones, such as the contest concerning the 
 nature of chlorine, — but may appeal to the present 
 state of the science. Who shall set bounds to the 
 doctrines of allotropism, and assure us that the whole 
 list of elemental substances is not after all but a series 
 of allotropic forms of one and the same substance ? 
 Yet if this be so, who shall be able to define the sci- 
 ence of chemistry? Nevertheless the science is pur- 
 sued and taught and justly considered an essential ele- 
 ment in a course of public instruction. It is even 
 demanded as a practical science for the use of agri- 
 culturists, although the most vital points concerning 
 the value of mineral and organic manures are still in 
 
17 
 
 dispute. We may therefore set it down as certain, 
 that differences of opinion concerning the truth or 
 falsehood of a doctrine do not constitute, in the judg- 
 ment of wise men, any reason for omitting the discus- 
 sion of those doctrines from the course of public 
 instruction. Nor, on the other hand, is perfect unan- 
 imity of opinion upon a point, or perfect certainty 
 of a doctrine, any reason why such points should be 
 included in our general course of study. No mathe- 
 matician doubts the truth, or the utility, of that little 
 book on the division of superficies, published by John 
 Dee and Frederic Commandine, and thought by Dee 
 to be from the hand of the great Euclid, but no 
 one has ever proposed to incorporate it, or any part 
 of it, into a course of academical study. 
 
 It is, therefore, manifest that the questions of cer- 
 tainty or uncertainty, and difference or unity of 
 opinion, are only secondary considerations in deciding 
 whether a certain study should or should not enter 
 into the course of instruction in this or that form. 
 
 The general principles which I have already enun- 
 ciated concerning the relation of each part to the 
 whole, and to the whole hierarchy of sciences, to the 
 length of the curriculum, and to the capacities of the 
 individuals, these general principles are sufficient to 
 decide the minor as well as the greater questions. 
 Those parts of geometry are to be introduced which 
 bear most directly upon the progress of the student 
 in higher mathematical studies, and to the acquire- 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 ment of mechanical, chemical, botanical, or zoological 
 knowledge. Those parts are to be excluded which 
 are not thus connected. And inasmuch as no knowl- 
 edge is wholly disconnected with other branches 
 (the work to which I just alluded as resuscitated by 
 Dee, is capable of some useful applications in survey- 
 ing, etc.), we must omit those things which have 
 fewest or least important connections, and retain those 
 which are most directly in the highway of truth. 
 
 So in religion. It makes no essential difference 
 whether there is, or is not, an agreement of opinion 
 on a point; it does not necessarily follow that it is 
 important if all are agreed, or that it is unimportant 
 if men are disagreed upon it. The question rather 
 is, Is this doctrine important in its connection with 
 other matters ? Does it throw light on the course of 
 history? Does it have a connection with the physi- 
 cal sciences? Does it bear directly on the moral 
 character of the pupil? Does it bear upon his relig- 
 ious character, his habits of piety? 
 
 "We have tested, on such general principles, the 
 question whether religion ought, or ought not, to enter 
 into the course of public instruction, and have decided 
 that it should. But shall we teach Theism or Athe- 
 ism, Pantheism or Exotheism? By the last term, I 
 designate that steadfast ignoring of religious questions 
 to which an exclusive attachment to physical re- 
 searches may lead one. But this and blank Atheism 
 we have already condemned as unfit to be taught 
 
19 
 
 anywhere, or by anybody ; Atheism, because it de- 
 nies the central truth of all science, the truth which 
 alone makes science possible, destroying thus the 
 natural head of the whole hierarchy of sciences; 
 Exotheism, because it steadily puts this central 
 truth of all science out of view, and attempts to 
 degrade theology from its natural position of the 
 head of the sciences, and to place it in a subordinate 
 position among " oldwives' fables." 
 
 It remains, then, to consider whether we should 
 teach Pantheism or Monotheism. Now, to me. Pan- 
 theism is, in theology, very much like the doctrine 
 that in geometry we have only logical forms of 
 thought, and are not dealing with entities. To teach 
 such geometry seriously and earnestly, is better than 
 to deride the science altogether; but it does not 
 develop the powers of imagination and conception; 
 it does not link itself with all the higher branches of 
 science so well as the higher doctrine that geometry 
 is the science treating of the real subject-matter — 
 space. So, a reverent and devout Pantheism may be 
 better than Atheism, and even better than the Exothe- 
 ism of positive science. For, as the language of a 
 devout spirit, even when intellectually misled towards 
 Pantheism, is theistic, the mind of the pupil may 
 receive the higher truth, through the medium in- 
 tended by the teacher to convey only the lower truth. 
 But Monotheistic views alone give theology its true 
 position in the scale of sciences, With Pantheistic 
 
20 
 
 views the highest science is lower than one of in- 
 ferior grade. When on going upward through the 
 sciences we have at last studied in the human mind 
 the laws of thought and feeling and volition, we per- 
 ceive that this self-conscious mind is the highest object 
 of our thought yet found. But as we have seen, while 
 studying the material universe, innumerable evidences 
 of wisdom, of plan and of purpose, we must suppose an 
 Infinite mind ruling the great mass of matter. But 
 here comes the question. Does this great mind which 
 adapts all organs to their functions, all materials to 
 their uses, all forms to the fulfilment of an ideal 
 plan, do so consciously or unconsciously ? In other 
 words, when we rise from the contemplation of our 
 minds to the contemplation of the Infinite mind, do 
 we fall from the consideration of a conscious being, 
 to the consideration of an unconscious being ? To 
 me it seems that this question answers itself by its 
 own absurdity. The modern philosophy which re- 
 gards the universe as an unconscious struggle of 
 non-being to become being, saved only by that strug- 
 gle from relapsing into the pure zero of non-exist- 
 ence, saved only by the impossibility of succeeding 
 in the struggle, from going over to the pure zero (as 
 they term it) of being, seems to me to be itself the 
 pure zero of irrationality, — which would be shock- 
 , ing to our sentiments of reverence, , if it were only 
 sufiiciently intelligible to be comprehended. To us 
 who believe in the first article of the creed, that 
 
21 
 
 there is one God, the Father Almighty, maker of 
 heaven and earth, that article is by far the most 
 important of all truths ; and it is on this accomit 
 that we insist it should make a fundamental point 
 in the instruction of youth, and cannot concede that 
 on any grounds it should be omitted. 
 
 The second article of the creed is also one which 
 must be considered, by those who believe in it, an 
 article of fundamental importance. No man, indeed, 
 can deny that faith in the revelation made through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, must assume, in the mind of 
 one who holds it, a central position — controlling and 
 modifying all his course of thought. Our entire 
 views of theology and morality are dependent on 
 the views we take of Christ, and we cannot, therefore, 
 put Christianity among the unimportant parts of relig- 
 ious instruction. That some disbelieve in it, and that 
 there is warmth of feeling connected with the dis- 
 cussion of its truth, cannot justify us in omitting the 
 subject, any more than the differences of opinion upon 
 questions of chemistry, physiology, and geology, would 
 justify a teacher of those sciences in omitting all ref- 
 erence to allotropism, to therapeutic agencies, or to 
 glacial and diluvial action. The evidences of Chris- 
 tianity occupy a central position in theology, which is 
 a fundamental science ; and those to whom these evi- 
 dences are sufficient are justified on every conceivable 
 ground in assuming always in their public instruction 
 the authority of the New Testament; and whenever 
 
22 
 
 their school is of such a nature as to permit it, in 
 showing with some minuteness the various branches 
 of evidence that tend to estabHsh the fact that Jesus 
 was proved to be the Son of God with power by his 
 resurrection from the dead, and by wondrous works 
 that no man could have done except God were with 
 him. I am well aware that there are persons at the 
 present day who claim to have outgrown the neces- 
 sity of attending to this evidence; some by having 
 grown so spiritual that the religious truths proclaimed 
 by our Lord commend themselves directly to their 
 minds and hearts as true, as needing no external 
 proofs of having been uttered by authority; others, 
 by having grown too wise to be convinced by such 
 proofs, who have set up for themselves new canons of 
 criticism that render the falsehood of the gospels de- 
 monstrable, and who therefore justify themselves in 
 passing by all the evidences of their truth. I am 
 well aware of the existence of these persons to whom 
 and for whom the evidences of Christianity are noth- 
 ing, and who would claim that in consideration of their 
 existence, we should omit all distinctively Christian 
 instruction from our public course of education. But 
 I do not see how their requirements should be granted, 
 any more than I see why the existence of persons in- 
 capable of receiving the Newtonian laws of philosophy 
 should cause us to omit the recognition of those laws 
 from our text-books on physics. In order to omit 
 Christianity and the evidences of its truth from our 
 
23 
 
 course of studies, we must show, not that there is not 
 a perfect unanimity of opinion upon the matter, but 
 that it is a question which does not connect itself 
 vitally with our views of history, — which does not 
 throw light upon any physical sciences, — which does 
 not bear directly upon the moral character of the 
 pupil, — which does not affect his religious character, 
 his habitual tone of thought on religious things. Now 
 no sane man, however strong he may feel himself in 
 his rejection of Christ, can deny that the question of 
 the reality of the revelation through Jesus does con- 
 nect itself, vitally, with all our views of history. Ac- 
 cording to the believer in revelation, all previous 
 events prepared the way for the coming of Christ, 
 all succeeding events have been modified by it, and 
 Calvary is the central point in the great historic pic- 
 ture of this world. Even the unbeliever in Christ 
 must acknowledge that never man spake like that 
 man ; that never did the word of prophet or sage 
 produce so sudden, so extensive, and so lasting an 
 effect upon civilized and enlightened nations as that 
 produced by the preaching of the gospel. What 
 think ye of Christ, is therefore a fundamental ques- 
 tion in the survey of human history. 
 
 Neither can any sane man deny that our recep- 
 tion or rejection of Christ affects our views of physi- 
 cal science. If we reject Him, then we are natu- 
 rally led to reject the views which he gives us of 
 the freedom, the sovereignty, and the forgiving love 
 
24 
 
 of God ; if we accept Hinij we of course accept these 
 views, and are ready to receive the doctrines of 
 geology which declare that God has frequently acted 
 upon our planet in circumscribed limits and at defi- 
 nite times, fulfilling through the long course of geo- 
 logical changes one plan, which He had in view from 
 the beginning, the preparation of the earth for the 
 abode of his children, — those doctrines of physics 
 which find in all material things the expressions of 
 wisdom and of personal kindness, — those doctrines 
 of history which recognize a ruling Providence, and 
 devoutly acknowledge that 
 
 " There 's a divinity that shapes our ends, 
 Rough hew them as we will." 
 
 No sane man can deny that the reception or re- 
 jection of Christ will naturally have a tendency to 
 afiect the moral character of the pupil. To reject 
 him and his doctrines, — to claim that he was in- 
 spired in no other sense and in no other degree 
 than we may each of us be inspired, if we will pay 
 the price, — what can be the effect upon us if not to 
 weaken in us the sentiment of reverence, and to 
 strengthen out of due proportion the consciousness 
 of our own dignity and w^orth? But to admit the 
 authority of Jesus, — to acknowledge and open our 
 hearts to the love of Him who though he was rich 
 yet for our sakes became poor, who though clothed 
 
25 
 
 with divine powers did not ask divine honors, but 
 submitted to poverty, to suffering, and to death, in 
 patient attestation of his mission, still offering forgive- 
 ness and help from God to those who were seeking 
 his life ; to admit the authority of such a master, — 
 what can its natural tendency be, if not to soften the 
 fiercer passions of the believer, and to bring him, 
 at least partially, into a likeness of this divine ex- 
 ample ? 
 
 Nor can any sane man deny that the acceptance 
 or rejection of the claims of Jesus to direct authority 
 from God, must in general have a marked effect upon 
 the religious character of the pupil. Few men have 
 that strength and depth of religious character, which 
 can make them, after rejecting the claims of Jesus 
 to direct authority, feel that in their own souls they 
 have a direct vision of religious truth, — a direct in- 
 ternal vision of the presence of an infinite Father. 
 With by far the larger part of the human race, expe- 
 rience has shown that if they do not see God revealed 
 in the face of Jesus Christ, they do not see him clearly 
 at all J their rejection of Jesus' authority is usually, 
 and I think naturally, followed by their neglect of 
 Jesus' precept to pray, by their disbelief in his doc- 
 trine of a special Providence, and finally, by a rejec- 
 tion of his doctrine of the Fatherhood of God. When 
 a man rejects the evidences of Christianity, he usu- 
 ally, and I think naturally, slides towards Pantheistic 
 views of the divine nature, 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 It must therefore, I hold, be conceded on all sides, 
 that the Christian religion is of such importance, in 
 its connection with physical, historical, metaphysical, 
 moral, and religious truth, as to demand a place in 
 every scheme of pubHc instruction, in spite of the 
 acknowledged fact that there are those who reject its 
 claims to be a revealed religion. But if we bring it 
 into our public instruction, how shall we bring it in, 
 as believers or as unbelievers ? Surely those who dis- 
 agree with us in our convictions would not ask us to 
 teach what we think falsehood. If it is, as I have 
 endeavored to show, necessary for us to speak on re- 
 ligious themes, and to discuss the claims of Christ as 
 the Messiah, the King of the new kingdom of God, 
 we must of course speak as we beheve. It may be 
 right for us to acknowledge to our pupils the exist- 
 ence of other opinions; it may even be right for us 
 to show to them the reasons adduced by unbelievers 
 for rejecting the gospels. But it is certainly more 
 imperative upon us, according to all the principles 
 which regulate the sphere of education, to show our 
 pupils the reasons for thinking the arguments of unbe- 
 lievers delusive sophistry, our reasons for thinking 
 that the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ 
 from the dead is stronger than the evidence for any 
 other historical fact whatever. We are bound, by 
 every principle which can actuate or guide us in the 
 sphere of education, to express to our pupils our view 
 of the labors of the great schools of historical, philo- 
 
27 
 
 logical, and metaphysical critics ; our conviction that, 
 upon either and each of these three grounds, the 
 rationalistic party, rejecting the supernatural charac- 
 ter of the gospel, are inexpressibly weak and sophis- 
 tical ; the supernatural party, admitting the claims of 
 Jesus, are invincibly strong, not in themselves, but in 
 the overwhelming strength of their arguments, appeal- 
 ing not to hair-splitting distinctions and refined quib- 
 bling, but to the common sense of honest hearts. 
 Taking the view which we do of the connection of 
 the fundamental Christian doctrine, that Jesus is the 
 Christ, with all other truth, we must introduce it into 
 public instruction, and, being believers, must of course 
 introduce it as believers. 
 
 What then, it may be asked, is to hinder this course 
 of reasoning from justifying the introduction of sec- 
 tarian strife into our schools and colleges? Do not 
 each sect of Christians claim that their peculiarities 
 are fundamental doctrines, and must be considered a 
 part of Christianity ? 
 
 I answer. No ! There is no sect of Christians who 
 will not confess that in the hearty and humble recog- 
 nition of the Apostle's Creed lies all that is funda- 
 mental in Christianity, The greatest diversities per- 
 haps existing in the Christian church, are those be- 
 tween Augustine's views and those of Pelagius on 
 predestination and freewill; and those between Pa- 
 pists, Congregationalists, and the New Jerusalem 
 Church, on the source of the light by which we are 
 
28 
 
 to read the Scriptures. These diversities are so great 
 and so nearly fundamental, that they doubtless affect 
 in some degree our views of truth in other matters. 
 In a Sunday school they may he taught, and in a 
 theological school they must be thoroughly discussed ; 
 there are, indeed, those who feel that these points 
 are sufficiently important in their bearing upon the 
 whole field of culture, to demand their introduction 
 into colleges. Hence we have, in various parts of 
 the country, colleges under the special patronage of 
 particular sects of the Christian church. If any man 
 feel that the importance of these views is great 
 enough to demand their introduction into the col- 
 lege course, he is of course right in sustaining such 
 colleges. But the highest authorities can be quoted 
 from those holding each of the five different opinions 
 which I have named, to the effect that their own 
 opinions are not absolutely essential to the Gospel, 
 but that their opponents may hold the essential body 
 of Christian truth in spite of their error ; and hence 
 those opinions cannot be of sufficient importance to 
 claim their introduction into the common schools. 
 
 The points on which the various sects differ are, 
 in general, very much less important than the five 
 points of predestination, freewill, the right of pri- 
 vate judgment, the authority of the church to inter- 
 pret Scripture, and the claims of Emanuel Swedenborg, 
 and if these five are not of sufficient importance to 
 demand their introduction into the common school, 
 
29 
 
 of course no other point of sectarian division is 
 worthy of that honor. We must remember that the 
 human mind is not capable of attending to an unhm- 
 ited number of things at once. In the growing mind 
 we must, it is true, introduce a due proportion of each 
 of the great divisions of science ; but to do justice 
 to all we must not show a favoritism toward any. 
 In the balancing of a just course of study, great 
 prominence must be given to the essential doctrines 
 of Christianity, those which are acknowledged by all 
 to be the most essential, the most characteristic; and 
 if the points about which the sects are divided are 
 brought in, then one of two evils follows ; these minor 
 points either distract the mind from other and more 
 essential parts of religion, or distract it from other 
 studies equally important in a liberal or public educa- 
 tion. 
 
 The conclusion at which I arrive is therefore this, 
 That into the public course of instruction in our 
 Christian land it is our privilege and our duty to 
 introduce the Christian religion in a positive and 
 earnest form, adapted to the ages of the pupils and 
 to the length of the course of studies on which they 
 have entered, but that the dogmas concerning which 
 Christians differ should not be introduced, but be 
 reserved for theological schools, — and that these con- 
 clusions flow not only nor chiefly from considerations 
 concerning the certainty or doubtfulness of such 
 dogmas, but from considerations of their relative 
 
30 
 
 importance and from general principles concerning 
 the choice of studies, which govern wise instructors 
 in all lower branches. 
 
 Members of the graduating class, — 
 
 It is hard for me to believe that the deep interest 
 with which many of you followed for two months 
 the exposition of the evidences of Ciiristianity, was 
 not shared in some degree by you all. I cannot but 
 believe that in the essays which you gave me at the 
 close of that study you expressed the real convic- 
 tions of your hearts, and that you join me in heartily 
 believing that the apostles followed no cunningly de- 
 vised fables, but were the eye-witnesses of the maj- 
 esty of Christ, and bore testimony to that which they 
 had themselves seen and handled. Let me then, as 
 the application of this address to your case, and as 
 the parting word of my instruction to you in Antioch 
 Hall, beseech you to become, whatever your choice 
 of a profession, or occupation in life, teachers of 
 the religion of Jesus. An educated man is, volun- 
 tarily or involuntarily, whatever his walk in life, a 
 teacher by word and by example. Be it your care, 
 graduates from this Hall, consecrated by the prayers 
 of saints, consecrated by the life and death of that 
 hero, whose place I imperfectly attempt to fill, be it 
 your care that your teaching shall lead those with 
 whom you have intercourse, to honor and embrace 
 that gospel which they see sanctifying your daily 
 
31 
 
 
 
 deeds and words. So alone shall you fulfil the 
 highest office to which you have been called, and 
 so alone receive, when graduating from the school 
 of life, honors from the Great Teacher of all. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 ■ii 
 
 029 915J078J^