ther into futurity, and which stamp his influence and his name upon tablets more enduring than are included in all ancient and modern science. He controls and directs the energies of immortal minds, which shall still endure and work on when the earth and the heavens are no more.

For the training of such a ministry, and the sending abroad through the families of mankind such an agency, the perpetual help and blessing of Almighty God is needed, and the dignity and responsibility of such a work must be deeply felt, that divine aid may be sought, proportioned to its magnitude and our weakness.

ARTICLE V.

BAIRD'S RELIGION IN AMERICA REVIEWED.

By Prof. J. ALDEN, D. D., of Williams College, Mass.

Religion in America; or, an account of the origin, progress, relation to the state, and present condition of the evangelical churches in the United States. With notices of the unevangelical denominations. By ROBERT BAIRD, author of "L'union de L'église avec L'etat dans la Nouvelle Angleterre." New-York: Harper & Brothers. 1844.

THE primary object of this book is to give information to Europeaus with respect to the religious condition of the United States. Information on this subject was greatly needed, not only on the continent, but even in Great Britain. We rejoice that the task of giving it was undertaken by Dr. Baird. His personal acquaintance with almost every part of our Union, his well known accuracy and patience of investigation, his ready appreciation of character and skill in selecting the right sources of information; his calm, sound, practical judgment, his candid and catholic spirit, his scholar-like habits and cultivated taste, render him admirably qualified for

THIRD SERIES, VOL. I. NO. III.

32

the execution of this work, and, we may add, for the department of labor now assigned him by the providence of God. It gives us pleasure to learn that editions of Dr. Baird's work have appeared in the French and German languages. A hundred copies in the French language have been sent to distinguished individuals in France, and other countries on the continent, including several crowned heads. Letters have been received by the author from the King of Prussia, the King of Wurtemberg, the Dutchess of Orleans, and M. Guizot, rendering him thanks for the seasonable information derived from his book. We rejoice that men occupying such commanding positions can appreciate the value of a religious work.

Although the book was written for European readers, yet it contains a large amount of information which will be new to most American readers. The intelligent American publishers were accurate in their judgment that the book would prove useful at home as well as abroad.

There are two points, in view of which we deem the work peculiarly valuable to American readers. First, the reader will get a more full and accurate idea of the religious character of the founders of the different colonies than from any other book with which we are acquainted; and secondly, it will furnish him with an authentic account of the different denominations of Christians, and their plans for acting on the public mind.

We regard the first named point as very important. Owing to the custom which has obtained of dividing history into civil and ecclesiastical, our historians have not given that prominence to the religious character and acts of the founders of our states, which is necessary to a full understanding of our country's history.

The influence of this custom on history in general has been very unfortunate. It has led men to confine their attention to particular classes of facts without perceiving their connection with other facts. The student who is destined to the walks of civil life, reads what is called civil history, as

furnishing the instruction likely to be useful to him. The student who is destined for the ministry, reads what is called ecclesiastical history, as furnishing the instruction likely to be useful to him. Both come short of the true idea of history. Who does not know that an event in the church is often the cause of an event in the state?—that the religious history of a country is inseparably blended with its civil history? Who that believes in the moral government of God, does not believe that the facts which come under the head of religious history, control, in a great measure, the facts that come under the head of civil history? How then can the history of one class of events be written entirely disjoined from the other? Yet this is the way in which history has been written.

Suppose one should attempt to record the phenomena of vegetation, and state their causes; he makes a distinction between light and heat, which is indeed proper, and confines his attention to the influence of heat alone. It is plain that his account will be very imperfect. But will the account of the historian be less imperfect who leaves out of view the influence of vital Christianity in his account of the causes of events?

The truth is, the history of the world is yet to be written, and from a different standing-point from that occupied by our standard historians. It is to be written in view of the fact that God governs the world, that Christians are the salt of the earth. Then the Luthers, and the Calvins, and the Knoxes, and those who prayed and acted in their spirit, will appear in another light, and be no longer incidentally mentioned as fanatical disturbers of despotism and sin.

From the book before us, the reader will get a clear idea of the relations which exist between the church, and the state and general governments; and will be pleased to see it incontestably shown that our governments are not (as has been asserted by the advocates of the union of church and state) atheistic or irreligious.

We are disposed in this connection, to give our views of the nature and origin of the state, or of civil society; inas

much as clear and elementary ideas on this subject will be serviceable to a full understanding of the true relation of Christianity to the state. We shall not be careful to prove every statement-as our object is to throw out hints, not to present a system.

Whence

Let us glance, then, at the origin of the state. the origin of the state, or of civil society? for we regard the expressions as synonymous. The doctrine of a social compact, of a general convention of the human race, the result of which was the formation of civil society, with its law of justice, binding in consequence of the consent then and there given, this doctrine so often resorted to as the foundation of arguments, was exploded long ago by Paley, though he failed to point out the truth in relation to the matter-or in place of the error exposed.

At the outset of this theory, it is assumed that the savage state is natural to man. Now, perhaps, few whose opinions are of consequence entertain this idea; yet the language expressive of this idea is in frequent use. Inaccuracy in the use of terms often leads to error, when the error originally connected with those terms has been exploded. We shall therefore state what we conceive the natural state of man, properly speaking, to be.

We affirm that the natural state of a thing is that which is best adapted to cause it to attain the end for which it was made. The natural state of a tree is that best adapted to its growth and productiveness. The natural state of man is that which is best adapted to the development of his physical, intellectual, social, and moral nature: and that is a state of society-of civilization. It is not necessary to adduce proof of the truth that a social civilized state is necessary to the fullest development of all the powers of man. The true natural state of man is not the savage state.

Society, then, is the only necessary result of the constitution of man, and hence may properly be said to be of divine origin. God is the author of society, just as much as he is author of the constitution of man. It is not the result of hu

man agreement; man does not become a member of it by giving his consent to its laws. "What," says a true Jeffersonian republican, who believes that all laws owe their just authority to the consent of the governed, "am I a member of civil society without my consent? Am I subject to its laws before I have had a voice in making them? I object to thisit is anti-republican."

We reply, it is true you are a member of society without your consent, you are subject to its fundamental law, the law of justice, whether you give your consent or not. The proof of this (if proof it can be called) lies in your moral nature. You see that you are a member of society—you feel that you are bound by its law-you might as well object to being born without your consent. You have nothing to do but to submit with the best grace you are able to assume. The facts are self-evident. The voice of your moral nature tells you that "these things are so."

It is commonly said that by becoming a member of society, man gives up some of his rights, that he may retain. others-surrenders a part of his natural liberty, that he may retain the rest. We regard this as an erroneous assertion. In the first place, we object to the phrase, "becoming a member of society," as involving an erroneous idea. But not to dwell upon this; we affirm that liberty is wholly of social origin. We know not what is meant by natural liberty, unless it be liberty to be a savage or a brute; we deny that man ever had any such liberty to give up. The law of his nature forbids it. A man has no right to be a savage or a brute, for he thereby would defeat the end for which he was made.

Liberty consists in security against wrong. This definition was first given by Sir James Mackintosh, and its adoption removes a host of difficulties, and leads us along a way which bears infallible marks of being the true way. A man has liberty, when he is permitted to do right, and when he is secured against wrong. Society requires him, or can lawfully require him only to do what is right, and to avoid what is wrong. He gives up no right, for he had not the right of