ing, singing, or praying, it necessarily produces regeneration, or "active holiness in the heart," as any cause produces its legitimate effect. Now, we ask, where is the Holy Ghost in all this? Is this what is meant by being "born of the Spirit?" Or what the apostle meant when he wrote to the Corinthians, "But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God?" Did this philosophy occupy his thoughts when he wrote, "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance?" Or, "God, according to his mercy, saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost?" We do not deny that the truth has an important agency in man's salvation, or that embracing it by faith is necessary to its efficiency; but we do deny that its philosophical effect upon any susceptibilities there may be in unrenewed man to gratitude and love, is "active holiness in the heart." This is the direct work of the Holy Spirit proffered to us in the Scriptures on condition of faith in Christ. Till this change is wrought, the manifestation of God to man creates no love, but rather fear and dread; since, the greater the love he has received, the greater is his guilt in abusing it. Mr. Watson, before-mentioned, speaks of the atonement and the Spirit thus :—

"As the atonement of Christ stoops to the judicial destitution of man, the promise of the Holy Spirit meets the case of his moral destitution. One finds him without any means of satisfying the claims of justice, so as to exempt him from punishment; the other, without the inclination or strength to avail himself even of proclaimed clemency, and offered pardon, and he becomes the means of awakening his judgment, and exciting, and assisting, and crowning his efforts to obtain that boon, and its consequent blessings. The one relieves him from the penalty, the other from the disease of sin; the former restores to man the favor of God, the other renews him in his image."-Institutes, vol. i, p. 222.

Where, we ask again, is the Holy Ghost in all this "Plan?" We are not unaware that his agency is recognized. It is so, particularly in a separate chapter, near the close of the work; but, then, it is said that it operates in accordance with the principles before developed. And, lest it should be thought to have too direct an agency in the work of grace, we are referred to the vegetable and animal creation, especially to the human body, and are reminded that, as God pervades these and superintends their operations, "in like manner the Spirit of God operates through, and guides the processes of, the plan of salvation." This is, indeed, to be preferred to an absolute denial of divine agency; but it seems to us to fall very far short of

the whole truth. According to this, man may produce heavenly affections in his own and in the hearts of others, as well as he can produce vegetation in his garden; and there is as little of God in the one operation as in the other.

5. Another objection to this "Plan" is, that it makes religious affection to consist, or at least to originate, in selfishness. The author admits that obedience which does not spring from love is not acceptable; and, when it arises from no other than interested motives, it is sin. Is affection from the same motives any better? The motive involved in religious affections, according to this philosophy, is, that God has not punished us as we deserved, but has made sacrifices to save us. Now, our obligation to gratitude, or reciprocal love, is not denied; but we do deny that the love of God shed abroad in the hearts of believers is principally of this character. It is, no doubt, strengthened by considerations of the goodness of God to them personally; but this is not its essential principle. Its principle is holiness, wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, according to the ancient promise, "The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul." It is one of the fruits of the Spirit, rather than of constitutional philosophy. It loves our divine Benefactor, not only because he is our benefactor, but because he is holy; and all other good beings for the same reason, though they are not our benefactors. It also loves our enemies and the enemies of God, and would do them good; and hence it is so far from being selfish, it is highly benevolent. Now, this is the affection which every believer in Christ enjoys, and its phenomena cannot be accounted for on the principles of the work before us.

6. We will notice but one point more, viz., prayer. How this is answered, is stated as follows:

66

Prayer brings the mind to the immediate contemplation of God's character, and holds it there, till by comparison and aspiration the believer's soul is properly impressed, and his wants properly felt. The more subtil physical processes and affinities become, the better are the analogies which they furnish of processes in the spiritual world. The influence of believing prayer has a good analogy in the recently discovered daguerreotype. By means of this process, the features of natural objects are thrown upon a sensitive sheet through a lens, and leave their impression upon that sheet. So when the character of God is, by means of prayer, brought to bear upon the mind of the believerthat mind being rendered sensitive by the Holy Spirit, it [the character of God] impresses there the divine image. In this manner the image of Christ is formed in the soul."

"It follows, therefore, that a fervent, importunate state of mind is, from the nature of the case, necessary, in order that God may be glo

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, ever, 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