‘ ... But it does seem to me quite impossible in education to leave religion an open question, _i.e._, to teach without hypothesis. How could we unite into one coherent whole the teaching of optics, unless we presuppose the undulatory theory? Or the facts of astronomy without the theory of gravitation? Yet both may be, and are questioned. For some philosophical theory must underlie all things, and no one can, it seems to me, teach history, or geography, or science without it. We who believe in Christian philosophy, and feel that it alone makes the universe intelligible, and life worth living for ourselves or others; who think that it is the power needed to give life to the world, and to deliver us from evil and all the misery which oppresses us, naturally desire with all the energy of our being to teach it, and we most of us would not let little differences hinder our working with those who acknowledge the immeasurable blessings of Christ’s teaching. Here I found dissenters wishing that the teaching of our College should be Church; because they said there must be some basis; that they would rather let their children hear sometimes what they disagreed with, and judge for themselves, than that there should be no definite teaching. They thought our Church was on the whole the most liberal. ‘I am so grieved, dear friend, that any of us should bring disgrace on our Teacher by our faults, but when we do what our Master, the Truth, disapproved, the blame should not rest on Him. It would not be just to you if we called a child who was in your class and loved you, by your name when she told a lie. Nor should you say, “See what Christians do,” when they sin against Christ. _In so far_ as they are untruthful they are un-Christian.