ed, has as regular a course of examinations to go through, as a candidate for the ministry, or for the medical profession. Every school district, or commune, as it is called, is obliged to build its own school house, and every man is taxed according to his property, for the support of the teacher; and this is the case whether the man have children or not; and then, of course, the schools are free. The magistrates are empowered and enjoined to secure the execution of this law, and the attendance of the children. The parents are subject to a fine if they refuse to send their children to the school; and in some instances, absolute force has been used to secure the attendance of the children. This, however, is very rare, as the only reason that a poor parent, in most cases, can have to prevent his child being educated, is the need of its services; the fine is sufficient to attain the end. In all these schools, the Bible is used as a reading book, and the biblical history made a matter of instruction by the teacher. The religious instruction, however, properly belongs to the pastor, who is obliged to devote at least one hour in the week to this object. All the children, the boys at fifteen and the girls at fourteen, are confirmed; and before this they must, at least for one year, have had regular religious instruction. This s not a mere form, the object is actually accomplished. I have designedly talked with some of the poorest children I could meet such for example as came to my room to sell matches-and have been surprised at the accuracy and extent of their biblical knowledge. These arrangements are extended APRIL, over the whole population; including Protestants, Catholicks, and Jews. Where the latter are numerous enough, they have their own schools; otherwise they must send their children to the Christian schools. This is a very interesting subject. Mr. Bekedorf has promised to send me some numbers of a journal, devoted to the affairs of schools, published under his direction, in which the plan of the seminaries for teachers is particularly developed. I hope to obtain from this source more definite information on this subject. This plan of universal education, and the making of the peasants landholders, will endear the memory of the present king of Prussia, and must eventually place his kingdom far above those members of the German empire who are not wise enough to follow his example." Editorial Remarks. We cannot permit this communication to go to the publick, without saying that we most earnestly wish that the Prussian system, with suitable modifications, were adopted throughout the United States. That part of the system which relates to the preparing of teachers for the schools, is quite as important as the rest. The want of well qualified teachers is indeed the great want-We rejoice to learn that in New Jersey, where such a spirit of religious and benevolent enterprise has lately appeared, measures are in train for preparing teachers for publick schools. May the effort be successful, and may it be imitated in every state of the American union. Review. DR. MILLER'S LETTERS ON CLERICAL Christian friends-something bor MANNERS AND HABITS. (Continued from p. 127.) In page 115 we find the following section "And this leads me to lay it down as another fundamental principle of conver sation, that nothing in the least degree bordering on the INDELICATE, OR THE COARSE, Ought ever to escape, in conversation, from the lips of a minister. If you wish to know how far I would carry this principle, I answer, if there be a thought or a word which the most delicate female would shrink from uttering in a publick company: if there be an anecdote, which the most scrupulous matron would be unwilling to relate, if all the world were her hearers; then let no clergyman venture to give utterance either to the one or the other. His delicacy ought to be quite as scrupulous and pure as that of the most refined lady." Thinking, as we do with Dr. Miller, that on the topick to which this section relates, it was proper to speak with marked emphasis, we are still of the opinion that his injunction is carried to an extreme; and he does not need to be informed that by an extreme of this kind, the very object aimed at is sometimes entirely lost-No regard is too often paid to that which is manifestly overrated. Now the Dr., in the section before us, is speaking of what is supposed to take place in every company-in that which is select, as well as in that which is promiscuous or publick. And therefore, even in a select company, the clergyman is forbidden to say any thing which "the most delicate female would shrink from uttering in a publick company;" or, "an anecdote which the most scrupulous matron would be unwilling to relate if all the world were her hear ers." We suppose it will be admitted that the delicate female and the scrupulous matron might themselves, and without impropriety, say some things in a private circle of dering on "THE COARSE," if not on the indelicate, which neither of them ought to utter in a promiscuous company; much less, if all the world were their hearers. The clergyman then, is, in fact, required to be under greater restraints than those to whom he is pointed for an example. Coarseness and indelicacy, highly offensive in all, are certainly more so in clergymen than in other men. But it should be remembered, that there is also a sensitive squeamishness, which betrays the very state of mind that it seeks to conceal; and which led Swift to say, that " a nice man, is a man of filthy ideas." It is difficult, if not impossible, to define exactly, and in all cases, the boundaries between what is proper and improper, in matters of delicacy. Times and circumstances, and even the demands of religious duty, may require, or permit, something to be occasionally said, that should generally be forborne. True delicacy of feeling, connected with a deep sense of religious obligation, will generally be a safe guide; and without these, no rules will be of much avail. There are vulgar souls and obtuse feelings, that never can be corrected; and their possessors must be left in the class of incurables-We wish we could say with truth, that no clergyman was ever found in this class. At pages 198, 199, we read as follows: "If your lot should be cast in a populous town, you will have frequent invita tions to attend DINING PARTIES. In some large cities invitations of this kind are received, if not for every day, at least several times in each week. Let me advise you to be very sparing in your attendance on such parties. The tendency of frequent luxurious feasting is, to injure the health; to dissipate the mind; to indispose for theological study; to undermine all spirituality; to lower the tone of mi. nisterial fidelity and influence; and in va rious ways to ensnare those who indulge in it. I have seldom known any minister who abounded in this practice, without incurring serious disadvantage in consequence of it; and in some cases the results have been of the most deplorable kind. If I were to lay down a rule on this subject, I would say, however numerous the invitations which you may receive, never as a habit, accept of more than one in a fortnight, or even three weeks. By this means your health will be better; -your head clearer;-your feelings more in harmony with your profession; and the impression left on the minds of those who invite you, more respectful and salutary." We unreservedly agree with Dr. M. in the injury which clergymen may receive, and have often experienced, from a frequent attendance on dining parties. But we can by no means assent to the propriety of the rule which he lays down on the subject. We believe that it is scarcely possible to find any medium, between an entire abstinence from all such parties, and a general compliance with the invitations given. Let a clergyman have, as we have ourselves had, a dozen invitations of this kind, in a fortnight; and let him, according to Dr. M.'s rule, accept of one, and but one, of these invitations-if the consequence be not that he shall grievously offend the eleven, whose invitations he has refused, then he will have found a more indulgent people than we have ever known. No, a parish minister must, in this respect, as in most others, treat all his parishioners alike; and they must be satisfied that such is the fact. If he tells them that his rule is, to accept of but one invitation in a fortnight, he will not easily make them believe that in selecting that one, he is not governed by partiality. But if he informs them tenderly, but yet firmly, that he regards it as a matter of duty, to decline all invitations to dining parties-he may indeed be regarded as singular, and unnecessarily scrupulous, but he will give no lasting offence; especially if in other respects, he manifests a proper desire to please them, and is diligent and kind in pastoral ther in city or country congregavisitations. In such visitations, whetions, if a dinner, strictly in the family way, made without previous notice, or any unusual preparation, be occasionally taken by a parochial clergyman, and this as a matter rather of convenience to himself than otherwise, he will not violate the rule we have stated, and may even lessen the disapprobation of that rule, which may have been cherished by some. If we allow, as we are disposed to allow, that there may be some very marked and peculiar occasions, on which a clergyman ought to dine in a promiscuous company, this is only to admit that ours, like every other general rule, must be taken with a few exceptionsfew, in the present instance, we think they ought to be, and the fewer the better. It will not, however, be understood, that what we have said is intended to apply to invitations of hospitality, which a clergyman may receive, when at a distance from his home. Yet the more, even of these, he can wave without offence, the more fully, in our judgment, will he sustain the propriety of his ministerial character. In page 325, Dr. M. writes prayer, are frequently, if not generally, "Some clergymen, during publick employed in looking round the church, in adjusting their dress, in fixing their hair, and in constantly changing their pos the exercise. All this is indecorous in any ture, as if impatient of the continuance of one; but especially in a minister of the gospel. If he allow himself thus to act, what can be expected from the mass of hearers, who always look to those who sustain votion, purity, and every thing that is orthe sacred office to go before them in denamental in Christian deportment?” The sentence of this quotation which we have placed in italicks, is the only one on which we are disposed to remark. We think it of importance always to keep up the distinction between indecorum and impiety. Both are often involved, before us, in the same action; but as we think they are in the instance we exceedingly dislike that what is highly offensive to God, should pass without more censure than is implied in calling it "indecorous." We wish the sentence had stood thus-"All this is not only indecorous, but awfully profane, in any one; but especially in a minister of the gospel." In page 353 we find the following sentences-"The first two sessions of ecclesiastical bodies that you attend, then, are by no means too much for you to pass as a close, vigilant, silent learner. Rely on it, for any young minister to wish that distinguishing precocity should mark his efforts as a speaker in church courts, is seldom-never wise." The section from which we have extracted these two sentences is, in general, so excellent, that we regret that our want of space forbids us to lay the whole before our readers. Nor have we any thing to object, except to the single word "silent," in the short quotation we have made. But this word brought to our recollection, with great force, the advice we received in early life, from the late Reverend Dr. Witherspoon-a man whose advice we have been accustomed to regard as oracular. No man was more intolerant than he, of precocious loquacity of any kind. Speaking of it in the common intercourse of life, he says "If the first time I am in company, especially with a young man, he talks incessantly and takes the whole conversation to himself, I shall hardly be brought to have a good opinion of him, whether what he says be good or evil, sense or nonsense. There are some persons, who, one might say, give away so much wisdom in their speech, that they leave none behind to govern their conduct."* Yet this was the man who gave advice to his pupils, when we were among them, which if it had been confined to this subject, as it was * Address to the students of the Senior Class, not, would have been to this effect-Never let a Presbytery or a Synod pass, in early life, without making your own voice to be heard. The truth is, there are two extremes to be guarded against in this matter-too much speaking, and the fear of speaking at all. The latter, modest young men are apt to think will vanish of itself, after a while. No such thing-It will grow stronger and stronger, the longer you delay. Therefore, the very first time you are a member of a church judicature, take some suitable opportunity to utter a few sentences, well premeditated, and but a few; and do this till the fear of speaking vanishes, as it will before you are far advanced in life. But if you take the opposite course, you will probably be a silent member of church courts till the end of your days-Whether there is less occasion to give such advice to young clergymen now, than there was five and forty years ago, we will not pretend to decide. But having quoted the two Doctors, we leave the reader to judge between themthey do not differ very widely. We At page 384, we find the following sentence-" And hence I have known, again and again, some of the most sober minded and excellent people of my acquaintance, giving themselves up to matrimonial partialities and connexions, so manifestly unworthy of persons in their senses, and so perfectly deaf to all the suggestions of wisdom, that [but for their age] they deserved the discipline of the rod, just as much as children at school. do not think that our friend the professor, really believes that married persons, especially "some of the most sober minded and excellent people of his acquaintance," ever deserve to be literally whipped, like "children at school." We would therefore respectfully suggest, that when this sentence is printed in future editions of this work-of which we hope there will be many-the clause we have placed in brackets be introduced as an amendment. The whole of Dr. M.'s twelfth letter relates to the subject of female society and marriage; and it is one which all unmarried theological students (for alas! some of them are not unmarried) and all unmarried clergymen, of whatever age, may read with great advantage. We so highly approve of the advice given in this excellent letter, that we hate to say a single word in the way of exception. Yet we have, in the preceding paragraph, noticed what we take to have been a small oversight; and we really must enter our dissent from what is said in the following section, pages, 385, 386 "In reference to this subject, my first leading suggestion is, that THERE ARE SOME CLERGYMEN WHO OUGHT NEVER TO ties. There ought to be a few such ministers in every church of large extent. Yet no one ought to be constrained, or even persuaded, to choose this plan of life. Nor should any one adopt it, unless it be the object of his deliberate and devout preference. And even, after having adopted it, for a time, he ought to feel himself at full liberty to retract, and assume the conjugal bond, whenever he is fully persuaded that he can serve the church better by taking this course." " the first sentence of this quotation, From the broad position taken in class of those who "ought never to we entirely dissent; unless the marry," be confined to such individuals (if such there are in the ministerial office) as have great bodily the subjects of known hereditary deformities or imperfections, or are disease, of the most formidable kind-considerations to which Dr. M. does not seem to refer. 'Ought MARRY. While I firmly believe, that the not," certainly implies moral oblidoctrine which enjoins celibacy on the gation; and this we do not, for ourclergy generally, is, as the apostle styles selves, believe that any clergyman it, a doctrine of devils,' and that it has is under, more than other men, in led, and must always lead, to the most reference to marriage; and it is our enormous evils; I have, at the same time, no doubt, that the minister who delibe. belief that no man or woman is rately resolves to spend his days as an under any such obligation, but in Evangelist, or an Evangelical Itinerant, the cases to which we have alluded, ought, if he can be happy in a single and as subject to those considerastate, to continue in that state. I am of tions of prudence, which ought to the opinion that neither Wesley nor Whitfield, for example, ought ever to have be regarded by all without distincmarried. They were both, indeed, tion. Indeed, Dr. M. himself seems strangely injudicious, in the selection of to come on this very ground, at a partner; but I doubt whether any wo- the close of the section quoted man could have been happy with either of them herself, or have made either of above. Still, we must oppose the them happy, as long as they pursued the opinion, unequivocally expressed course of life to which they were devoted. by Dr. M., that, "neither Wesley I think, too, I could name some indivi- nor Whitfield, for example, ought duals, aw living, in our own country, ever to have married," and that whose usefulness is greatly extended by their declining to entangle themselves there" ought to be a few such miwith those worldly cares, which the con- nisters in every church of large exjugal relation seldom fails to induce. I tent." We do not indeed go the know not that you have in view any such length of a writer of considerable plan of ministerial labour. If you have, and if you can be comfortable in a life of authority, who maintains that "it is as much the duty of every man celibacy, I would advise you never to marry. In this case, you may give yourand woman to marry, as it is to eat, self more entirely to your work; your and drink"-with the exceptions movements, however incessant, may be and restrictions that we have alreauntrammelled; much less will suffice for dy stated. We surely do not think your decent support, than if you had a family; and thus you may afford essenthat every clergyman "ought to tial aid to many congregations, from which you would be in a great measure shut out, if you were bound by domestick * Burgh, the author of "the Dignity of Human Nature." |