religious worship and instruction; and in the Frame of Government, after
establishing the University, there is given to legislators and
magistrates a mandate forever to cherish and support the cause of
education and institutions of learning. These were the declaration of
broad and liberal policies. They are capable of being combined, for in
fact they declare that teaching, whether it be by clergy or laity, is of
an importance that requires it to be surrounded with the same safeguards
and guaranties as freedom and equality. In fact the Constitution
declares that "wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused
generally among the body of the people, are necessary for the
preservation of their rights and liberties." John Adams and James
Bowdoin knew that freedom was the fruit of knowledge. Their conclusions
were drawn from the directions of Holy Writ--"Come, know the truth, and
it shall make you free."

These principles there laid down with so much solemnity have now the
same binding force as in those revolutionary days when they were
recognized and proclaimed. I am not unaware that they are old. Whatever
is, is old. It is but our own poor apprehension of it that is new. It
would be well if they were re-apprehended. It is not well if the great
diversity of modern learning has made the truth so little of a novelty
that it lacks all reverence.

The days of the Revolution were days of reverence and of applied
reverence. Teaching was to a considerable extent in the hands of the
clergy. Institutions of learning were presided over by clergymen. The
teacher spoke with the voice of authority. He was treated with
deference. He held a place in the community that was not only secure but
high. The rewards of his services were comparatively large. He was a
leader of the people. From him came the inspiration of liberty. It was