« PoprzedniaDalej »
ed in italics and capitals. It is well known that many persons have a strong repugnance to the idea of salary, both in church and state, especially in the former. The very mention of the name salary is sufficient to chill their blood. They consider it as synonymous with sinecure, and look upon it as a tax paid by the industrious poor to support the rich in idleness. And it seems to us that the use of this word assists very much to give plausibility to the writer's conclusions. Neither in the Review nor in the Remarks have we used the word so conspicuously displayed in the Postscript, in reference to the young men educated by the church for her service. In the Biblical Repertory, p. 612, the principle we maintain is expressed thus:
"Whenever any man devotes his whole time and talents to the service of any community, at their request, it is obligatory on that community to provide for his support."
Between the proposition thus expressed and that put into our mouths by the writer, there is this obvious difference: The one conveys the idea of nothing more than a bare subsistence; the other may mean, and usually does mean, according to established usage, an annual income, varying from that which is necessary to support an individual to what is adequate to maintain a family in splendour and luxury.
We think, then, that the intelligent, as well as the vulgar reader, is liable, from the representation given in the Postscript, to misconceive the real principle we advocate. Substitute the word support for salary, as applied to young men preparing for the ministry, wherever it occurs in the argument, and the force of the writer's reasoning will appear very different from what it now does.
In the next place, we object to the conclusiveness of the argument. The general principle we have laid down may be true, and we believe is true, and yet the absurdities to which the writer thinks he has driven us may not follow. The general proposition is, "that whenever any man devotes his whole time and talents to the service of any community, at their request, it is obligatory on that community to provide for his support." Let the reader notice the qualifying terms "at their request." The absurdities which are deduced from this general principle are, first, that
"The sons of the rich who are preparing for the ministry are as much entitled to the support of the church as the sons of the poor.""
"That all our youth, from childhood up to mature age, in a course of preparation for the service of the public, in whatever capacity, ought to be maintained at the public expense during the whole term of their preparation."
In order to arrive at these conclusions, the writer has to violate one of the fundamental principles of sound reasoning. He argues from what is true in particular circumstances, that the same thing must be true in other circumstances, and in all circumstances. That since a community is bound to support a man when he engages in their service "at their request," they are also bound to support him when he commences without their request.
In physics we know that a general principle may be so modified or counteracted by circumstances as not to produce the same effect as if it were permitted to operate unobstructed. In morals, also, our duties are greatly modified and varied by circumstances, so that what ought to be done independent of circumstances, often ceases to be obligatory when certain circumstances exist. Thus it is a natural principle of justice that all men are entitled to liberty; but the criminal who has violated the laws of his country cannot plead that this general principle should operate so as to throw open his prison doors. In like manner we think the broad principle expressed in our former remarks is strictly true; yet circumstances may and do exist, which render the application of this principle to individuals, in particular circumstances, inexpedient and improper. It is improper to support the sons of the rich on the funds of the church; because their parents are able to pay the expense of their education; and every young man of a right spirit would wish to give evidence of the purity of his motives in seeking the ministry of the gospel, by deducting the expense of his education from the patrimony he expects to receive. It is also impracticable, because the church is not able to educate all who are needed for her service, and the poor have a superior claim, on the ground that they have no other means of subsistence. When, therefore, the church requests a young man who has no means of subsistence to commence a course of preparation for her service, we say she is bound to provide means for his support while thus employed; for on no other condition can he engage in her service. Yet when
the church educates indigent and pious young men, we maintain, in virtue of our principle, that she should not consider the aid she gives as charity, but as the support which she, as their moral parent, is bound to give. And if this view of the subject were taken, we flatter ourselves that those painful and odious epithets "charity scholars" would not so often be heard. We cannot agree with the writer, on the other side, that this view of the subject is calculated to cherish feelings of pride and self-importance, and to annihilate those
gratitude and obligation. The individual, it is true, need no longer consider himself as an idle beggar; but he ought not to cease regarding himself as a son, whose industrious and liberal parent has furnished him with the means of an education, and who expects no other remuneration than that he will employ his talents and acquirements and property (if any he should have) for the benefit of the common family and of the world. Motives to gratitude towards God are certainly not diminished. That he has received his support during his education not in the ordinary way, through the hands of parents moved by the impulse of natural feeling, but through the hands of strangers, governed by a sense of duty, seems to us a consideration as well adapted as any other to inspire the heart with gratitude towards God. But, it is said, these motives in some cases are not felt, and that we have mournful instances of young men thus educated becoming vain and self-important, and even extravagant. Let it be admitted that it is so; it only proves that the most sacred and solemn moral obligations cannot bind some men; and if this page should meet the eye of one such, we would say, Ungrateful man, remember this word, to whom much is given, of him shall much be required. But is the possibility of such an occurrence prevented by the system of loans? Suppose a young man, when the time arrives, is able to pay his bonds, and does so; may he not then think his own hands have done this, and become vain of his talents and uncommon worth? Or if an individual be employed in missionary or other service, where he receives a scanty subsistence, and the bonds are cancelled, or the payment not demanded, may not he, amidst poverty and privation, be induced by the favourable decision of the directors to think that his services and merits are very great, and spiritual pride reach his heart through the chinks of his wretched cabin?
The truth is, no means which man can devise, no bonds
which he can impose, no severities which he can enjoin, can inspire that spirit which should actuate a minister of Jesus Christ. You may embarrass and perplex, and even crush him, but you cannot compel him by bonds and fetters to love his Master's work, and joyfully to spend his strength and life in His service.
The answer we have given to the writer's first inference from our doctrine applies with greater force to the second, when he says,
"It must be admitted, on the same grounds of reasoning, that all our youth, from childhood up to mature age, in a course of preparation for the service of the public, in whatever capacity, ought to be maintained at public expense during the whole term of their preparation."
In addition to what we have already said, bearing on the same point, we answer, that a wise government will adopt the course which the writer here points out, whenever it becomes necessary. If the emoluments of professional and public men be not now sufficient to induce parents, who have the means, to educate their sons for these stations, then the government ought to give larger salaries, or to afford such facilities in acquiring a suitable education, even if the youth should be supported at "public expense," as would bring into its service men competently qualified. This principle, which the writer of the Postscript thinks is attended with such alarming consequences, is acted upon by our general and state governments, though not to the extent which we could wish. Not to mention for the third time the provision made for supplying our army and navy with competent officers, we say, that almost every state in the Union, except that in which we have the honour to live, has endowed academies and colleges, furnished them in whole, or in part, with buildings and libraries and apparatus. And why is this done? Obviously to facilitate education and to diminish the expense to individuals. Young men, the sons of the rich as well as of the poor, are now educated in all our colleges of any respectability at an expense less than cost. Calculate the interest of the capital sunk in buildings, in libraries, in apparatus, in salaries to professors, and you will find that it is far greater than the amount paid for instruction and accommodations, exclusive of board, which is usually furnished at cost. Now, whatever is paid for the education of a young man less than it actually costs, is so much given indirectly
to that young man; for it saves so much of the patrimony which he is to receive.
According to the reasoning which we controvert, this difference ought to be refunded by those who are educated; or these institutions ought never to have been endowed by public or private liberality. If the argument we oppose be conclusive, then New Jersey has always had the wisest legislature in the Union. Whenever application has been made to aid either of the two colleges located in the state, our legislators were easily persuaded that if they gave any thing to these institutions it would diminish the expense of an education, and would be so much given those educated, and be virtually a salary. These applications have uniformly been rejected after a brief speech from one of the members to this effect-" Do you not see the consequence of giving money to a college? It will enable them to pay their professors, and then they can live and receive as much as they now do, and charge less, or perhaps nothing, for the instruction of rich men's sons. If they will make their sons gentlemen, let them pay the full amount. You might as well give those young chaps a salary at once. It is in fact a salary, not quite sufficient to pay their expenses, but it goes a good way towards it, and saves so much in their father's pockets. Go on in this way and even our common farmers will be tempted to educate their sons, and we shall have nobody left to raise bread. Yes, hold out the prospect of salary from early life, and see what the consequence would be in one year. Why there would be more statesmen, magistrates, lawyers, physicians, (and may I not add) preachers too, in the bud, than there would be citizens to support them. The state would soon sink under its own burdens." It will be seen at once that there is strong resemblance in this speech to a passage at the top of the thirty-seventh page of the Postscript; and the reasoning from the premises is about as conclusive in the one case as in the other.
In page 37 of the Postscript we are a second time presented with the resolution of the Assembly's Board of Education, as confirming the system of loans adopted by the American Education Society, and contradicting the principles advocated in this Journal.
In our remarks in the last number we passed over in silence the resolution of the Assembly's board referred to, because we had not pledged ourselves to defend every thing