5.  The community are agreed, in theory, that personal attachment to the Supreme Being is the duty of every human soul; and every parent, with exceptions so few that they are not worth naming, wishes that his children should cherish that affection, and yield their hearts to its influence.  He is willing, therefore, that the teacher, of course without interfering with the regular duties for the performance of which he holds his office, should, from time to time, so speak of this duty, of God’s goodness to men, of his daily protection and his promised favors, as to awaken, if possible, this attachment in the hearts of his children.  Of course, it is very easy for the teacher, if he is so disposed, to abuse this privilege also.  He can, under pretense of awakening and cherishing the spirit of piety in the hearts of his pupils, present the subject in such aspects and relations as to arouse the sectarian or denominational feelings of some of his employers; but I believe, if this was honestly and fully avoided, there are few, if any parents in our country who would not be gratified to have the great principle of love to God manifest itself in the instructions of the school-room, and showing itself, by its genuine indications, in the hearts and conduct of their children.

6.  The community are agreed not only in believing that piety consists primarily in love to God, but that the life of piety is to be commenced by penitence for past sins, and forgiveness, in some way or other, through a Savior. I am aware that one class of theological writers, in the heat of controversy, charge the other with believing that Jesus Christ was nothing more nor less than a teacher of religion, and there are unquestionably individuals who take this view.  But these individuals are few.  There are very few in our community who do not in some sense look upon Jesus Christ as our Savior—­our Redeemer; who do not feel themselves in some way indebted to him for the offer of pardon.  There may be here and there a theological student, or a contributor to the columns of a polemical magazine, who ranks Jesus Christ with Moses and with Paul.  But the great mass of the fathers and mothers, of every name and denomination through all the ranks of society, look up to the Savior of sinners with something at least of the feeling that he is the object of extraordinary affection and reverence.  I am aware, however, that I am approaching the limit which, in many parts of our country, ought to bound the religious influence of the teacher in a public school, and on this subject, as on every other, he ought to do nothing directly or indirectly which would be displeasing to those who have intrusted children to his care.

So much ground, it seems, the teacher may occupy, by common consent, in this country, and it certainly is a great deal.  It may be doubted whether, after all our disputes, there is a country in the world whose inhabitants have so much in common in regard to religious belief.  There is, perhaps, no country in the world where the teacher may be allowed to do so much toward leading his pupils to fear God and to obey his commands, with the cordial consent of parents, as he can here.[3]