rified, and man blessed, by the duty of prayer. It was in view of these constitutional principles that Jesus constantly taught the necessity of desire and importunity, in order that mercies might be received in answer to the supplication of saints."-Pp. 202, 205.

According to this, it matters little whether our prayers are addressed to the proper object of worship, or a block of marble, provided we imagine that the object we address possesses divine attributes, because there is no hearing or answering of prayer in the case; but merely the philosophical effect of our own exertions, in speaking to a being to whom we attribute perfection of character. Nor, indeed, is it necessary to pray at all, only so far as the exercise aids in concentrating the thoughts, and getting a clearer view of the being worshiped. As to the mind "being rendered sensitive by the Holy Spirit," it amounts to nothing; for we have already shown that the Spirit's operations are explained away, so that they have little more to do in the salvation of souls than in the preservation of the physical system. How little does all this sound like the philosophy of Heaven, as indicated in the following scriptures!"He that cometh unto God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him. This is the confidence that we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us, and God shall deliver the needy when he crieth, the poor also, and him that hath no helper. I called upon the Lord in distress, and the Lord answered me." Was this done on the philosophical principle involved in the daguerreotype? Was it on this newly discovered principle that the Lord heard David's "cry," and brought him up out of the horrible pit, and put a new song into his mouth? Revelation spurns the idea. Answer to prayer is something more than the mere philosophical operation of mental exertion. It is God responding directly. So we have believed and taught; and the phenomena connected with the subject can be accounted for on no other hypothesis.

We will close this sketch by remarking, that the theory we oppose is not sustained by facts. The history of religion is entirely against it. Universal consciousness repudiates it. And however it may moderate the extravagance of infidelity, it promises little for vital Christianity. The religion with which its discussion is so deeply impregnated, and the "practical effects" recorded in the last chapter in its support, are admirable, but they owe their existence and loveliness to a higher principle. In a word, they are "the fruit of the Spirit," in accordance with the gospel system, and are nowhere found except in connection with justification by faith, and the "renewing of the Holy Ghost." Whatever propen

sity there may be in man to worship idols, to which he transfers his own corruptions, he has no such propensity to worship God. His moral feelings are all directly opposed to it. Hence, though the character of God might be set before him in the pure light of heaven, and the infinite condescension of Christ.might be portrayed in the seraphic eloquence of the skies, it could no more create affection" in his heart than it could raise the dead. It might, by the blessing of God, terrify him, and induce him to fly to mercy's altar; but it could not produce love. This is the peculiar office of the Spirit, and not of the "philosophy," to which we object. Yet, as before remarked, the work contains many interesting truths, and, if read with due precaution, may prove beneficial.

Worcester, Mass.

ART. III.-America, and the American People. By FREDERICK VON RAUMER, Professor of History in the University of Berlin, &c., &c. Translated from the German, by WILLIAM W. TURNER. Pp. 501. New-York: J. & H. Langley. 1846.

To those who cherish a regard for the repute in which America is held in Europe, it must be pleasing to note the character of the books put forth by the later tourists in the United States. A change is evidently coming over the spirit of their dream. Men of a high grade of intellect do not now, as many once did, consider it beneath their dignity to inquire seriously into the nature of our institutions, and discuss gravely the feasibility of the project which we have formed in civil affairs. At first our government was looked upon, almost universally, as a wild experiment. When our republic commenced its existence, England was further advanced toward free institutions than any other European state, and yet, among her men of thought, those who had no doubt of our success were few and far between. Since the days of Cromwell, and his stout-hearted iconoclasts, the divine right of kings had indeed possessed very few advocates, except among those who were conscious that certain privileges and immunities of their own were involved in the divinity of the royal title to sovereignty.

But that form of government which was given up as a divine institution, was, and is now, when considerably modified, defended as the best. The principle upon which despotism is founded is

this, that by virtue of birth or station some few are so exalted above the mass of the nation, that the welfare and interests of this minority who rule are of more value than those of the multitude who obey. According to this theory, all power centres in the king or the aristocracy; the people have no rights: and if the powers that be, eves; in the plenitude of their condescension, deign to bestow favors upon their subjects, these gracious gifts are to be received as. we receive the bounties of Heaven, with an humble, conviction. that the recipients have no claims to them. These opinions have passed away, except among those that dwell in darkness, and in the shadow of political death. But among multitudes of professed statesmen, that form, which was no longer advocated upon the right divine, was, and is yet, advocated upon the principles of expediency. They admit that the welfare of the people is the object of all government. They do not deny the abstract truth of the principle set forth in the great Declaration, that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; and that, for the preservation of these rights, governments are instituted among men. But the grand problem is, How should a government be constituted so as to secure these rights with the greatest degree of certainty? Any form of government may fail of its true end, and be made the instrument of tyranny; but what particular system is least liable to these evils?

Let us endeavor to look at the subject from the European point of view.

The moderate royalist argues that he has no more veneration for the divine right than the most enthusiastic republican; but he does not believe that the masses can govern themselves. He reasons thus: The science of government, and of political economy in general, is not easily comprehended. A safe participation in the formation of the laws implies a deep knowledge of the general theory of civil government, and a thorough acquaintance with the practical effects of existing systems of policy. If the people themselves, by their own direct agency, secure good laws, it must be accomplished in one of two modes-either they must know what particular enactments will conduce to the general prosperity, and instruct their representatives accordingly; or the electors, by their personal knowledge of men, must select those of the strongest intellects, and the firmest principles of patriotism, and impower them to enact those laws which they, with their superior knowledge of civil affairs, may deem beneficial.

Now the first of these modes, he argues, clearly involves an impossibility; and the other is so extremely uncertain that no

reliance can be placed upon it. In all governments, the great mass of the people must continually toil for subsistence; and their want of leisure, of mental training, and of the means of acquiring sound political knowledge, necessarily precludes their knowing what laws will promote their own welfare, and they may drive their representatives into measures absolutely suicidal. If they choose the other alternative, and place implicit faith in the wisdom and virtue of their public men, they are exposed to all the evils of demagogueism and political charlatanry. A clique of designing men may combine for the prosecution of their own base purposes; and by incessantly flattering the "dear people, the intelligent people, the sovereign people," may persuade their many-headed dupe to elevate them to the summit of power. And when once duly installed in high places, they may utterly disregard the good of their constituents, and plunge the nation into endless disasters. And even then they may so keep up appearances that their deluded supporters are led to assign false reasons for existing evils, and rally devotedly around their destroyers, as the future saviours of their country.

Therefore, concludes the royalist, even admitting that all the citizens of a state mean well, and are lovers of law and order, which is no small assumption, real regard for their best interests dictates that they should not be burdened with power which they cannot employ with safety to themselves. We do not despise the masses; but we believe that circumstances, which none can control, unfit them for the great task of fashioning their own laws. Let us, then, give them that portion of influence in the state which will guard their rights, and be the palladium of their liberties; let them have their House of Commons; their Chamber of Deputies: but let there be another element, not under the direct influence of the popular will, which may check the convulsive movements of blind impulse and control its waywardness. Let there be a flywheel added to the engine, which will give smoothness and equability to its motion, and prevent its tearing itself to pieces by its own irregularity and violence.

These fears of popular ignorance, and consequent instability and caprice, led John Locke to recommend an aristocracy to the Georgian colonists. They led Alexander Hamilton to propose, in the great convention of 1787, that the president and senate should be elected to serve during good behavior, that is, in other words, for life; and that the former should appoint the governors of the states. They led Roger Sherman to say, in the same convention, that the people could not, with safety to their own interests, exerVOL. VII.-14

cise much direct power in the government. And so reason, to this day, many honest minds on the other side of the Atlantic; and yet, as earnest a republican as we are, we do not feel at liberty to charge this opinion to a lack of ordinary mental power, or a want of ordinary intelligence. The great Washington himself evidently considered our institutions a somewhat bold experiment; and, at times, feared the failure of all his dearest hopes.

We, on this western side of the ocean, now look no longer upon the American government as an experiment; unless, indeed, as experimentum crusis, which has already decided the principle for ever. In fact, we cannot contemplate the political structure which we have erected without a degree of honest exultation. We do not rejoice in the work of our hands as the Assyrian monarch gloried over Babylon. We would acknowledge that "unless the Lord build the city, they labor in vain that build it;" but "He hath not dealt so with any other nation." No nation, of modern timeș, has prospered as this republic has prospered. Perhaps we may say, without boasting, that we are becoming, in civil liberty, the light of the nations. When freedom first kindled her beacon light upon our shores, the tyrants of Europe, with all their mercenary train, derided the feeble beams. Even the friends of liberty, as they cast their eyes over the ocean, rejoiced with trembling, and feared every moment to see the glimmering light go out. But, as they looked, it became brighter. The flame shot up higher and higher. Soon the whole western sky glowed with the ruddy blaze. Now it tinges the mountain tops of Europe; and throughout the world the dawn of liberty is begun. It has not yet expelled all the darkness, but it will. Tyranny, like a dense thunder storm, still hangs over millions. But even where the cloud is blackest, the light of freedom falls, and spans the darkness with a bright bow of promise, which speaks of the joyous hour when clouds shall scatter, and darkness flee away. Republicanism must triumph, for it is based upon eternal truth. The idea, which denies that men can comprehend their real interest in temporals, is but a modification of that which denies the same in spirituals. Verily, they are as nearly allied as are the brothers of Siam. When a system of government is forced upon the people for their good, a system of religion is almost invariably added to it. And when one of these false notions is effectnally destroyed, the other is nigh unto death. In our age, the tendency of free institutions is onward. Even where the form of royalty is retained, the spirit is fast departing. America is too small to shut in the truth; and the mighty waves of the ocean are too feeble to stop its march; it