« PreviousContinue »
decided to publish them in a volume by themselves. The circumstance of their having been delivered in the Capitol, before an audience composed chiefly of those who occupied the high places of authority in the land, may serve to show why I have made so frequent a reference to the privileges and responsibilities of our own country. . The publication of these Lectures in a separate volume, has afforded the more space for the notes which I have appended to them, and which will be acceptable to readers who may not have at hand all the authorities from which they are selected. There is one class of works to which I have referred, not only with a frequency but with a confidence, which some readers may be inclined to disapprove. I refer to the leading Periodicals of the Press, as the American and Foreign Quarterlies. On many subjects, especially such as are of high interest to the public welfare at the present time, there is no better authority extant. A new era in authorship has arisen. The generations of folios have in a great measure passed away. These “sons of Anak” no longer weigh down the shelves of libraries, or burden the arms of readers, as in former times. In their stead has arisen a generation of duodecimos and octavos, sometimes springing from the bowels of their unwieldy ancestors, and again coming into life and forming an entirely new race. Among these, our periodicals take a high stand. They are the channels through which the intellect of our day pours forth many of its best treasures. They are no longer mere finger posts, pointing us to the stores of knowledge. They contain the mine in themselves. The world is no loser by this change. There are many able men who are masters of some important questions whose knowledge would die with them, if they had not an article in some modern quarterly, or monthly, or weekly, as a means of communication with the public. The periodicals have thus become enriched with contributions to the stock of knowledge, till there is no subject in divinity or philosophy, ethics or politics, which they have not treated with great ability, and on which they do not form a valuable reference. The writers give us not only their own views, but the views of other men; and generally not diluted, but rather distilled and condensed.
Among the other authorities to which I have referred, either in the body of the Lectures or in the Notes, and to which I feel myself indebted, are, Selden De Synedriis et Praefecturis Juridicis Veterum Ebroeorum— Lowman on the Hebrew Government—Adams' Defence of the American Constitution—Paley's Moral Philosophy—Dwight's Theology—Michaelis' Commentaries on the Laws of Moses— Jahn's Archaeology—Story on the Constitution of the United States—Kent's Commentaries —Chateaubriand’s Beauties of Christianity— De Tocqueville's Democracy in America— Brougham's Political Philosophy—Hallam's Introduction to the Literature of the Middle Ages —Alison's History of Europe—and Macauley's History of England. To these I will add the name of Professor Wines. Although his lectures on the Hebrew Commonwealth have not yet been given from the press, they have been delivered in many of our principal cities, and have been received with an attention which was creditable to the public taste. I hope in due time to have the pleasure of reading what I have heard with profit and pleasure. The lectures of Professor Wines would form a valuable acquisition to the library of every man who wishes to become well acquainted with the Hebrew polity and the leading principles of Hebrew legislation. I have not always coincided with the views embraced by some of the writers to whom I have referred; and I have been the more careful to express my dissent from Michaelis, in order that my reference to his authority on some questions might not be interpreted as an indication that I embrace his sentiments on others. He was a man not only of great learning, but of great pride in his learning. This led him to take positions which cannot be maintained, and also to treat the Bible itself as if he felt himself authorized rather to show what it ought to teach, than to explain what it does teach. His works contain various and valuable information, but he is an unsafe commentator for those who will not take pains to separate the chaff from the wheat. I feel that I ought not to forego this opportunity of acknowledging the kindness of friends by which I have been enabled to pursue the work to which for some time past I have devot
sented for consideration till I have been induc ed to enter upon fields of inquiry far beyond the limits originally contemplated; and of course the more time is required to prepare the whole work for the press. I am constantly reminded by those best qualified to judge, that investigations professing to illustrate the connection between science and religion ought to be conducted with great care and deliberation. Nothing can be gained, and much may be lost, by injudicious haste. It is not to be denied that in the contest which Christianity has been called to wage against “philosophy falsely so called,” truth has too often suffered by arguments in its defence that were found in the end to be superficial and inconclusive. Some of our distinguished scholars and divines revised and rewrote many of their most useful sermons twelve or fourteen times before publication ; and if they were willing to bestow such care and diligence on discourses which treated the more familiar subjects of Christianity, I ought not to be sparing of labor and patience when pursuing investigations on the harmony between those two great depart