RELIGION IN PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.
i,,                       i
i;.  /~F
BACCALAUREATE ADDRESS,
DELIVERED BEFORE
TIlE GRADUATIN  CLASS
OF
ANTI O aIH C OC LEG E,
YELLOW SPRINGS, OHIO,
JUNE 20, 1860.
BY
T H O M A S
BO ST ON:
LITTLE, BROWN AND COMIIPANY.
1 8 6 0.
H I L L. 
CAMBRIDGE:
Allen and Farnham, Printers.
I4 t,-' 
ADDRESS.
I HAVE long felt that the greatest need in our systems 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 stimulating more effective laborers to work upon this problem, 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 Religion enter into
the scheme of public instruction?   Shall our public
schools be thoroughly secularized, and religious instruction be reserved exclusively for the Sunday school
and the pulpit? Or shall our schools become sectarian, and indoctrinate the pupils in the tenets of that
tm
I
(>O
x
-0 
4
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.
Religious 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  conclusions.
This is evident, not only on a comparison of-religious 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 metaphysical  and  religious questions.   Those  questions
which have referred only to space, to what is external to the soul, have never elicited heat in the dis 
5
cussion, even when they have been incapable of solution. 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 dangerous ground. It may be impossible for me to consider 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 acknowledging 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 conclusions; and to discuss, for a few moments, the question, To what extent and in what form should geometry 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 simplest 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 answer, because it is a fundamental branch of the hierarchy, and the knowledge of any thing whatever implies 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
If
li
L,
i
il
I
I
f"
t
I I
11
t
iI
r, -
f
4
.l:
i
I
I 
7
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 institutions geometry may be neglected, in others overcultivated; in some treated too abstractly, in others
made too much a mere matter of drawing with compass and ruler; but all this arises from errors of judgment in applying the fundamental principles of education to the question, and not from any doubt concerning the principles themselves.
Turning now to the main object of my discourse,
I ask, Shall religion be introduced into the course
of public 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 corn 
8
prehend any one of them, until we have traced it
in its relations to theology.
Begin with the simplest of all branches, the mathematics, and a moment's reflection will show how utterly 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 matheinatics 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 problems by the faith that they thereby came into communion with the thoughts of the Most High.
In like manner, physics are not carried to their
true conclusions until they lead us to speculate concerning 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 leading 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 discoveries by his steady adherence to the axiom, that
every organ was intelligently adapted to its functions; 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 fulfilment of one comprehensive plan of the Divine
thought.
When we ascend into historical studies, their incompleteness, 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 incomplete, unless it leads upward to theology. What
2 
10
are the various languages of man but so many barbarous 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 languages, the plan of an infinitely wise Teacher, carried out, like his plans concerning the material world,
by the means of exceedingly simple but efficient
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 paternal 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 complete, 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 unfathomable love which has filled the universe with its myri
*M,,
..,P..Ie~      -- 
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 proportion of religious teaching.
And that proportion is to be found, so far as relates
to the simple intellectual question, in the same manner 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 storehouse, 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 capital 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 manhood, 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 departments of learning.   But as the child grows older, -it
should learn abstract forms of words as well as practical 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 Christian, 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 upon fallacious arguments.  The
objections to sectarian teachings, and to intolerance
of other forms of faith, are valid; but are very generally placed upon what I consider invalid grounds,
or at least lupon secondary grounds, while niore ftlndamental considerations would more effectually settle
the point.
It is frequently said that politics and religion should
be excluded from our common schools, and other institutions of public instruction, because they are matters
upon which men's opinions are divided; that politics
taught in a school must necessarily offend the partisans of opposite views, and religion taught in the
schools must necessarily wound the conscience of
those whose doctrines differ from those of the textbooks. 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 secondary weight in deciding the great questions under discussion, 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 differences 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 ourselves of the idea of space, it must be, say these
men, a part of ourselves and non-existent out of ourselves.
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 geometry, 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 excluded from the course of public 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 philosophy? 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, in the introductory chapters of his splendid 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 line is an infinitesimal thread, and a point an atom, thus reducing
geometry to the science of extended bodies considered 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 measuring material things?
The like 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 public instruction, might be drawn from all the other
sciences. We frequently find men, through a deficiency of mathematical clearness, opposing the Newtonian 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 Science, 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 striking 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 science of chemistry? Nevertheless the science is pursued and taught and justly considered an essential element in a course of public instruction. It is even
demanded as a practical science for the use of agriculturists, 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 judgment of wise men, any reason for omitting the discussion of those doctrines from the course of public
instruction. Nor, on the other hand, is perfect unanimity 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 mathematician 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 certainty 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 enunciated 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 ma thematical 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 knowledge  is wholly  disconnected with  other  branches
(the work to which I just alluded as resuscitated by
Dee, is capable of some useful applications in surveying, 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 physical sciences?  Does it bear directly on  the moral
character of the pupil? Does it bear upon his religious 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 Atheism, Pantheism or Exotheism? By the last term, I
designate that steadfast ignoring of religious questions
to which an exclusive attachment to physical researches may lead one. But this and blank Atheism
we have already condemned  as unfit to be taught 
19
anywhere, or by anfiybody; 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 inferior 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 perceive 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 regards the universe as an unconscious struggle of
non-being to become being, saved only by that struggle from relapsing into the pure zero of non-existence, 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 shocking to our sentiments of reverence, if it were only
sufficiently 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 account
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 religious instruction. That some disbelieve in it, and that
there is warmth of feeling connected with the discussion 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 Christianity occupy a central position in theology, which is
a fundamental science; and those to whom these evidences 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 establish 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 necessity of attending to this evidence; some by having
grown so spiritual that the religious truths proclaimed
by our Lord commend themselves directly to their
ninds 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 demonstrable, 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 nothing, 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 incapable 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 connect itself, vitally, with all our views of history. According to the believer in revelation, all previous
events prepared the way for the coining of Christ,
all succeeding events have been modified by it, and
Calvary is the central point in the great historic picture 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 question in the survey of human history.
Neither can any sane man deny that our reception or rejection of Christ affects our views of physical science.  If we  reject Him, then we  are naturally led to reject the views which he gives us of
the freedom, the sovereignty, and the forgiving love 
24
of God; if we accept Him, 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 definite times, fuilfilling through the long course of geological 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 rejection of Christ will naturally have a tendency to
affect the moral character of the pupil.  To reject
him and his doctrines,- to claim that he was inspired 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 worth? But to admnit 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
It 
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 internal vision of the presence of an infinite Father.
With by far the larger part of the human race, experience has shown that if they do not see God revealed
in the face of Jesus Christ, they do not see him clearly
at all; 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 doctrine of a special Providence, and finally, by a rejection of his doctrine of the Fatherhood of God. When
a man rejects the evidences of Christianity, he usually, 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 public 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 disagree 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 religious 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 believe. It may be
right for us to acknowledge to our pupils the existence 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 unbelievers 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 character of the gospel, are inexpressibly weak and sophistical; the supernatural party, admitting the claims of
Jesus, are invincibly strong, not in themselves, but in
the overwhelming strength of their arguments, appealing not to hair-splitting distinctions and refined quibbling, 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 sectarian 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 recognition of the Apostle's Creed lies all that is fundamental in Christianity. The greatest diversities perhaps existing in the Christian church, are those between Augustine's views and those of Pelagius on
predestination and freewill; and those between Papists, 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 be taught, and iv 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 college 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 private judgment, the authority of the church to interpret Scripture, and the claims of Emianuel 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 unlimited 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 education.
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 conclusions 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 Christianity, 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 convictions of your hearts, and that you join me in heartily
believing that the apostles followed no cunningly devised fables, but were the eye-witnesses of the majesty 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, voluntarily 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
..,.;.
I*:.  *:.,. 
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. 
I