vested with the powers and honors of Public Men? Are they, then, in the order of Providence, to wield the sceptre of a mighty influence, among the Great of the Earth? Are they to be summoned to control the fortunes of their country, as Statesmen and Legislators, as Orators and Patriots ? Are they to lay down their lives, holy and precious offerings, in the martyrdom of Patriotism or Religion? Are they to extend the boundaries of Science, to adorn the empire of the Arts, to enrich and decorate the Literature of their Age, and not to leave behind them "a line, which dying they might wish to blot"? Are they to visit "Earth's loneliest bounds, and Ocean's wildest shore," to dare the perils of frozen or burning climes, to plant the dwellings of man, in the wilderness of the brute, or to bless with civilization, the desolate life of the savage and barbarian? Are they to be the holiest of the holy, best and greatest among the good, Heralds of the Everlasting Gospel, Priests of the Most High God? Are they to be the Apostles of their Age, rivals of Augustine, Boniface and Xavier, of Gilpin and Schwartz, of Eliot, Martyn and Heber? Are they to scatter the lightnings of divine wrath, with Massillon and Bourdaloue, with Taylor and Whitfield, with Dwight, Hall, Mason and Chalmers ? Or like Fenelon and Flechier, Beveridge, Channing and Wilson, to persuade in the eloquence of heavenly love? Are these, indeed, to be the destinies of some, at least, of your children? Look abroad then, through the world of the living and the dead, and you will search in vain for a standard of real greatness, or a fountain of sublime virtues, for a parent of exalted duties, or a model of true glory, comparable to the Scriptures? Let their beams shine then daily on the minds, let their fires daily glow in the hearts of your children. Thus, if they are to be among the Great of the Earth, they will be greatest of the great; for they will be servants of God, as well as of man. But such can be the destinies of only a few. What then is to become of all the rest? To them will be allotted the calm, sequestered vale of life, the duties and enjoyments of social and domestic circles. Their only titles will be found in the names of Father and Son, of Husband and Brother, of Neighbor, Friend and Citizen. To some will be entrusted an enlarged usefulness, even in the narrow sphere of their obscurity. But to others will allotted little more, than "Rhymes uncouth, with shapeless sculpture decked, On some, will descend the glittering shower of riches, and the fortunate stream of life will roll over golden sands. On others, the storm of ruin will burst, in fearful desolation. To some will be given, to sit each under his own fig tree and vine; whilst others must pass under the yoke of dependence. Some, in fine, will behold in the covenant cloud, a never-failing rainbow of peace; and others that go forth on their way, weeping, shall sow in tears, to reap in joy. But, whatever be their lot, whether poverty, or wealth, prosperity or adversity, social influence or a solitary station, the Bible is the only land mark they can trust. Send them forth then, on the ocean of life, perilous and treacherous as it is; but teach them in daily education, to regard the Bible as their Beacon of safety, and, whether sunshine or gloom, the storm or the calm, the beauty and wealth of spring, or the nakedness and desolation of winter be their lot, all must be well with them in TIME; for all shall be well with them in ETERNITY. 6 NOTES. NOTE A. p. 67. THE following extract from the Introductory Lecture of Mr. Hurwitz, at the London University, illustrates what is said here. "Excepting Origen in the second, and Jerome in the fourth century, very few Christians could boast of a considerable knowledge of the Hebrew, before the beginning of the sixteenth century. Reuchlin was the first, that led the way. He was followed by a few others; but the prejudice of the times, joined with the prevailing ignorance, prevented the general diffusion of Hebraic learning' We may form some idea of the ignorance even of the clergy in those days, from what Conr. Heresbach relates in his work (Orat. de Laudibus Literar. Græc.). He states that he heard a monk announce from the pulpit to his audience, "They (I suppose the heretics) have introduced a new language called the Greek: this must be shunned. It occasions nothing but heresies. Here and there, these people have a book in that language, called the New Testament. This book is full of stones and adders. Another language is starting up-the Hebrew. Those that learn it, are sure to become Jews." NOTE B. p. 68. I hardly know any fact so extraordinary, as the almost total exclusion of Religion and Biblical Literature from schemes of Education. Why should not the Old and New Testament be illustrated (and all Classic Antiquity together affords not such a subject for illustration) from sacred and profane history, from geography and travels, from manners and customs, from literature, science, natural religion, and prophecy? Whether we look to its truth and importance, to its universal and enduring character, or to the variety, sublimity, and beauty of its elements, all other books are vastly inferior to it. Is there any comparison, as to the depth of interest and diversity of materials, between the connection of Assyrian and Persian, of Persian and Grecian, of Grecian and Roman History, and those of sacred and profane History, as exhibited in Shuckford and Prideaux? And is not the same question equally applicable to profane, as compared with Ecclesiastical history, in its great master, Mosheim? Is any commentary on Homer, and Virgil, comparable to Lowth on Isaiah and Horsely on Hosea? Do Grecian or Roman Letters boast of any thing, that rivals Lowth on Hebrew Poetry? If the examples of private and public virtue among the Greeks and Romans be counted so valuable, as incentives to youth, who can doubt their vast inferiority to the like instances in the Old and New Testaments? Why should not all the virtues, taught and required by the Christian Religion, be illustrated by a multitude of anecdotes, drawn from the sentiments, trials, and sufferings, the lives and deaths of Christians? To treasure up such facts in memory, would be of more value to our youth, than to know Nepos and Plutarch by heart. Classic biography and history are counted invaluable; and yet Christian Biography and History are neglected. Classic Poetry and Eloquence are regarded as indispensable; but those of the Bible are rejected. Cicero's Offices are taught as a model of duty, while the New Testament, the only model, worth teaching or worth learning, is banished. When shall liberal education in Christian countries mean Christian education? When shall the great object of Education be, to teach Duty, private and public, Christian duty; and above all things, to prepare Christian children, to be Christian men and Christian women? When shall the great end of all education be, to teach the young, that education is worth nothing, if it do not fit them to live well, in order to die well? NOTE C. I should experience real pain and mortification, if I thought that the sentiments, which I am about to express, could be justly regarded as illiberal. That some will so consider them, I doubt not; but their opinion would give me neither pain, nor mortification. I speak with much confidence to two classes of persons, to those, who are decidedly religious, and to those, who not being such, do yet acknowledge the Bible to be, as a mere composition, above all other books, and to be the only safe foundation of morals, the only complete standard of character. As religion is the every day business of mature years, it ought to be the every day work of youth. No method can accomplish this object, short of interweaving it into the whole course of education. It is possible, that an objection might be made on the ground, that each sect of Christians must have its own separate school. This is true, if each school is to be a species of theological seminary, and the articles or catechism or confession of faith is to be taught; but not if each is to be simply a Christian school, and the New Testament the text-book. Those denominations, which agree in essentials, can easily unite in a scheme of Education, with the Bible as a daily text-book; provided they realize the inestimable value of Religion, the importance of early and continued instruction, and above all, provided they meet on the common ground of an agreement in essentials, and in a truly liberal spirit of christian fellowship. Where this agrement, and this liberality of sentiment do not prevail, no such union could be expected. It is neither unjust nor illiberal on the part of those, who can thus harmonize, so to construct their schemes of education, as to attain their first great object, even though the effect should be to exclude from their schools, the children of those sects, which cannot unite with them. Those, who adopt the views of the Address, on the subject of religious education, and on the expediency and duty of making the Bible a daily text-book, will feel that these are ends, far too important to be sacrificed to the gratifications of admitting into the same school, the children of every religious denomination. Assuredly they are as little bound to make this sacrifice, as to accommodate their worship to the views of others, who disagree with them; for, according to my sentiments, the school is as much the appropriate place and season for the Christian instruction of the young, as the church for the Religious improvement of those of mature years. The minority have no reason to complain that the majority do, what they conceive to be their duty by their own children, instead of disregarding that duty, by providing a scheme to embrace the children of both. Who can hesitate between the children of others and his own, even in temporal concerns? Still less should he pause, when the question is, shall the temporal good of those be preferred to the spiritual good of these? NOTE D. p. 75. Gataker, in his Apology for bestowing, though a Christian Minister, so many years and so much labor on the Meditations of the Heathen Antoninus, says, "Another thing of no small moment is this, we discover the equity of the Christian doctrine, and its perfect agreement with reason, while we show it is approved and praised even by strangers and adversaries. A testimony from enemies is of great weight." And Dion Prusæus tells us, that "the encomium of those, who admire, though they do not receive, must be the finest of all praises." I place here, with real satisfaction, the following just and eloquent eulogium by Rousseau and I cannnot doubt, that he would have recommended such a book, as an elementary work, in the whole course of education. "The majesty of the scriptures strikes me with astonishment, and the sanctity of the gospel addresses itself to my heart. Look at the volumes of the philosophers, with all their pomp: how contemptible do they appear in comparison to this! Is it possible, that a book at once so simple and sublime, can be the work of man? Can he who is the subject of its history, be himself a mere man? Was his the tone of an enthusiast, or of an ambitious sectary? What sweetness! What purity in his manners! What an affecting gracefulness in his instructions! What sublimity in his maxims! What profound wisdom in his discourses! What presence of mind, what sagacity and propriety in his answers! How great the command over his passions! Where is the man, where the Philosopher, who could so live, suffer, and die, without weakness and without ostentation! When Plato described his imaginary good man, covered with all the disgrace of crime, yet worthy of all the rewards of virtue, he described exactly the character of Jesus Christ. The resemblance was so striking, it could not be mistaken, and all the Fathers of the Church perceived it. What prepossession, what blind. ness must it be to compare the son of Sophronius, to the son of Mary! What an immeasurable distance between them! Socrates, dying without pain, and without ignominy, easily supported his character to the last; and if his death, however easy, had not crowned his life, it might have been doubted whether Socrates, with all his wisdom, was any thing more than a mere sophist. He invented, it is said, the theory of moral science. Others however, had before him put it in practice; and he had nothing to do but to tell what they had done, and to reduce their examples to precept. Aristides had been just, before Socrates defined what justice was; Leonidas had died for his country, before Socrates made it a duty to love one's country. Sparta had been temperate before Socrates eulogized sobriety and before he celebrated the praises of virtue, Greece had abounded in virtuous men. But from whom of all his countrymen, could Jesus have derived that sublime and pure morality, of which he only has given us both the precepts and example? In the midst of the most licentious fanaticism, the voice of the sublimest wisdom was heard; and the simplicity of the most heroic virtue crowned one of the humblest of all the multitude. : |