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

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

unjust in compelling them to pay taxes to sustain such schools? The writer of this article is a Protestant of the most radical ty does not stop with Martin Luther, but who protests against all ob

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 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 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 Emanuel Swedenborg, and if these five are not of sufficient importance to demand their introduction into the common school,

of course

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

unjust in compelling them to pay taxes to sustain such schools? The writer of this article is a Protestant of the most radical does not stop with Martin Luther, but who protests against all o

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