1787 have given this election directly to the people? To consider this question fairly, we must regard the circumstances under which the convention that drafted the Constitution met, and whom they represented, and for whom the Constitution was made, and by whom it was to be accepted or rejected. States alone were concerned in the matter, and it is only natural that they should have adopted the forms familiar to themselves. They were all essentially republican in their systems. Manhood suffrage even did not obtain in any of them, and the selection of members of the Legislature was almost the only instance in which the use of the elective franchise was permitted to the people. Pure democracy, as a political principle, was not approved. Why, then, should they have introduced it as a means of determining their choice of the highest officer of their new Government?

Demoralizing the Republican party, by bringing into vogue these Democratic ideas, so diametrically opposed to all its teachings, is not the only sin for which General Jackson has to answer. He will go down to history as the first President who ever denied the federal character of the general Government, and it is he who is most responsible for the change which that denial has wrought. The doctrines set forth in his proclamation of 1832 were those adopted and acted on by Mr. Lincoln in 1861.

Soon after the announcement of these opinions as to the nationality of the general Government and its unlimited powers, the agitation of the Abolition question was increased in the Northern States. If the Government was national, and its powers without limitation, why could not slavery be abolished, if its abolition conduced to the general welfare, to promote which was one of the purposes for which the Union was formed? If the Government possessed the power, and did not exercise it, are not those responsible for slavery who controlled the Government? If the majority had a right to rule, what excuse could the North make for the existence of slavery, since it had a majority of two-thirds of the whole population? Was not the question of slavery, then, in its moral, social, and political aspects, a proper one for consideration and discussion

by the people of the North? If the majority should decide adversely to the institution, could the minority justly complain? Was not the right of the majority to rule one of the first principles of our system' of government? The Union must be preserved '-so said General Jackson; and those who attempted its destruction, being traitors, should be treated as such.

6

An Abolition party was soon organized, and, as it increased in numbers, its aid was sought by both the others. The spoils of office being now considered a legitimate object for which to contend,' availability' superseded all other considerations in selecting candidates by the National Conventions.' Those who saw the danger, and raised their warning voices, were denounced as agitators. But why continue this painful history? The result is known-the election of Mr. Lincoln, the war, the destruction of the Constitution, the consolidation of the Government, and the establishment of a Democratic despotism on the ruins of the Federal Republic!

It is now more than forty years since the seeds were sown which produced this bitter fruit. Men who are now prominent actors on the political stage were not born when the late revolution began. By aid of the Crawford letter, and the Eaton quarrel, Mr. Van Buren was enabled to obtain an influence over General Jackson which led to the results we are now witnessing. Had Peggy O'Neal never lived, or died before 1829, or never married Major Eaton, the Crawford letter would never have been produced, would probably never have been written, and would certainly never have been believed.

We have gone much into detail, and our article has grown in length far beyond our intention. We thought the story might not be uninteresting to the present generation, many of whom have possibly never heard of transactions so deeply involving their fate and that of their country. There were some points in the Memoir' which we intended to notice, and especially Chief Justice Taney's connection with the removal of the deposits. We may resume the subject at a future time.

ART. III-A Methodist in Search of the Church. By the Rev. S. Y. McMasters, D. D., LL. D., late President of St. Paul's College, Palmyra, Missouri. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. 1870.

pp. 311.

Indeed we cannot always be grave, and solemn, and severe; we must sometimes laugh. Otherwise our incessant toil reading, thinking, writing-would prove worse than the 'Song of the Shirt' Stitch, stitch, stitch.' So we do, and will, delight in a good occasion to laugh, and to shake our sides a little. Such a happy leave to laugh the above book gives us, and we therefore seize the blessed occasion.

The bare title put our risibles in motion. When, the other day, in the 'book store of the Church,' our eyes lighted on that title on the back of a neat little volume, the tide of laughter began to rise within us. Higher and higher it rose, until at last, and before we had read one word of the work, we found ourselves brimful of fun. How very improper! how very foolish!' we seem to hear some solemn Churchman say. By no means, good friend; there is much in a name. The one before us, A Methodist in Search of the Church, proved infinitely suggestive to our minds. Image after image, in wild commotion, came trooping through our brain, and hugely did we enjoy the scampering recollections. Neither in old Chaucer himself, nor in the Faery Queen, is there a more rollicking route of laughing things.

So, said we to ourselves, 'We will buy the book.' No sooner said than done. The book is priced, paid for, and safely deposited in our overcoat pocket. We take our seat in the street-cars. There, as luck would have it, we found ourself standing by an old friend, and a most excellent gentleman too, who had been a Methodist once, but is now a most worthy member of the Church. We drew forth our new treasure, and, handing it to him, said, 'There is a book for you.' He took it from our hands; he read the title; he very politely returned

it

to us, and retired to the other end of the car. Presently we found a seat, and again, as luck would have it, an Episcopal lady was seated by our side. But she, too, had descended from Methodist parents, and was herself brought up in our synagogue. We handed her our little book. She took it, and smiling politely, said, 'Ah, doctor, we must have you back in the Church again. You must come back, and bring some of your Methodist friends along with you.' Very well, Miss Anna,' we replied; 'with the greatest pleasure imaginable, when the right time comes, if that should ever be. But at present your fences are rather too high, and your pastures are rather too rank with ritualism. Only let your fences down, for the poor lambs of our flock cannot leap so high; and kill off, too, some of the ritualism of your green pastures, for Methodists are not followers of Nebuchadnezzar, and such tall grass does not agree with their stomachs. Only do this, and then will we think more of your very kind invitation 'to walk in.'

We have the highest regard for Miss Anna. She is, indeed, a wonderful woman, for though she went from the Methodists into the Church, she did not take a through ticket.' She still rests among its lowest branches. She still believes that her good old Methodist mother is, in spite of her adherence to the faith of her deceased husband, really a Christian woman, and has some little interest in the covenanted mercies.'

'But what does all this mean?' said we musingly to ourselves; the first persons whom we meet in the cars were once Methodists in search of the Church, but are now Episcopalians. They have long since found the object of their search. If we look around, in the great city of Baltimore, lo! the multitude of Episcopalians who were once Methodists, or descended from Methodist parents! What would the Church have been, indeed, or done, if our despised 'camp-meetings,' or 'revival system,' had not supplied her with so many living members? If Methodism, in one word, had not been to her so kind a foster-mother and feeder, or so great a reservoir to supply her with the waters of life?

This train of reflection led our thoughts from our great

cities to the surrounding States. In the State of Georgia, as we have been informed, the Church had one thousand communicants in the time of Oglethorpe, and now it has only three thousand. The Methodists have, in the meantime, sprung up and overspread the State like a swarm of bees. In Tennessee, also, there are, we are told, only twelve hundred members belonging to the Church, while in Nashville alone the Methodists far exceed this number. In one of the Methodist congregations of Nashville, indeed, there are no less than eight hundred and forty members-more than two-thirds of the number of all the Episcopalians in the whole State. But the Church will have its day. The Methodists-noble pioneers of the Gospel!have sown the seed, but the Church will in due season come in for her share of the fruits. The Methodists have borne the heat and burden of the day, and the Church would, no doubt, be a little grateful for her share of the harvest if she were not so profoundly convinced that she is entitled to the whole.

Let us not be misunderstood. We are perfectly willing to divide liberally with our neighbors, but we cannot give them quite all. We do not see, indeed, their 'divine right' to all. Hence, if some refuse to come, as they do, the Church may cut them off from the great promise and blessing of the common Father, if she can. But to return to our nar

rative.

Arrived at home, we first took a cup of coffee, and then sat down to our little book. The first page showed us that the Church had a natural, inherent, and indefeasible right to the Rev. Mr. Manwareing, the Methodist minister and hero of the story. This claim is, moreover, confirmed and established by the whole history of the Rev. Mr. Manwareing. For, according to this history, he was yery honest, but, at the same time, as narrow-minded, bigoted, and ignorant as he was honest. He was not a Methodist in search of the Church,' for the simple reason that he was not a Methodist at all. He was only one in name. He was merely a man in search of his own place, and he found it. Joy go with him! We should be glad to part with a few more such.